shaie commented on code in PR #11764:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11764#discussion_r968832961
##########
lucene/facet/src/java/org/apache/lucene/facet/facetset/MatchingFacetSetsCounts.java:
##########
@@ -156,7 +157,43 @@ public FacetResult getAllChildren(String dim, String...
path) throws IOException
@Override
public FacetResult getTopChildren(int topN, String dim, String... path)
throws IOException {
validateTopN(topN);
- return getAllChildren(dim, path);
+
+ topN = Math.min(topN, counts.length);
+
+ PriorityQueue<Entry> pq =
+ new PriorityQueue<>(topN) {
Review Comment:
Would you like to use the variant which takes a supplier of sentinel
objects? It will allow you to avoid the `null` checks below and in general
improve the performance of the algorithm below (unless we don't expect `topN`
to be much smaller than `counts`. The usage pattern then becomes comparing the
current count+label to the `top()` and if it's better you update the `top()`
and call `updateTop()`.
##########
lucene/facet/src/test/org/apache/lucene/facet/facetset/TestExactFacetSetMatcher.java:
##########
@@ -46,6 +49,105 @@ public class TestExactFacetSetMatcher extends FacetTestCase
{
private static final int[] MANUFACTURER_ORDS = {FORD_ORD, TOYOTA_ORD,
CHEVY_ORD, NISSAN_ORD};
private static final int[] YEARS = {2010, 2011, 2012};
+ public void testTopChildren() throws Exception {
Review Comment:
Since the change is only in `MatchingFacetSetsCounts` and has nothing to do
with the matchers, I think the test should be in `TestMatchingFacetSetsCounts`
and remove the duplication in the "Range" test class. WDYT?
##########
lucene/facet/src/java/org/apache/lucene/facet/facetset/MatchingFacetSetsCounts.java:
##########
@@ -156,7 +157,43 @@ public FacetResult getAllChildren(String dim, String...
path) throws IOException
@Override
public FacetResult getTopChildren(int topN, String dim, String... path)
throws IOException {
validateTopN(topN);
- return getAllChildren(dim, path);
+
+ topN = Math.min(topN, counts.length);
+
+ PriorityQueue<Entry> pq =
+ new PriorityQueue<>(topN) {
+ @Override
+ protected boolean lessThan(Entry a, Entry b) {
+ int cmp = Integer.compare(a.count, b.count);
+ if (cmp == 0) {
+ cmp = b.label.compareTo(a.label);
+ }
+ return cmp < 0;
+ }
+ };
+
+ int childCount = 0;
+ Entry reuse = null;
+ for (int i = 0; i < counts.length; i++) {
+ int count = counts[i];
+ if (count > 0) {
+ childCount++;
+ if (reuse == null) {
+ reuse = new Entry();
+ }
+ reuse.label = facetSetMatchers[i].label;
+ reuse.count = count;
+ reuse = pq.insertWithOverflow(reuse);
+ }
+ }
+
+ LabelAndValue[] labelValues = new LabelAndValue[topN];
+ for (int i = topN - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
+ Entry e = pq.pop();
Review Comment:
If you accept my proposal above, you will need to break the loop when
hitting a sentinel value
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
