mikemccand commented on code in PR #12692:
URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/12692#discussion_r1363842558
##########
lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/fst/FST.java:
##########
@@ -1081,22 +1085,30 @@ public Arc<T> findTargetArc(int labelToMatch, Arc<T>
follow, Arc<T> arc, BytesRe
}
// Linear scan
- readFirstRealTargetArc(follow.target(), arc, in);
-
+ readFirstArcInfo(follow.target(), arc, in);
+ in.setPosition(arc.nextArc());
while (true) {
- // System.out.println(" non-bs cycle");
- // TODO: we should fix this code to not have to create
- // object for the output of every arc we scan... only
- // for the matching arc, if found
- if (arc.label() == labelToMatch) {
- // System.out.println(" found!");
- return arc;
- } else if (arc.label() > labelToMatch) {
+ assert arc.bytesPerArc() == 0;
+ flags = arc.flags = in.readByte();
+ long pos = in.getPosition();
+ int label = readLabel(in);
+ if (label == labelToMatch) {
+ in.setPosition(pos);
+ return readArc(arc, in);
+ } else if (label > labelToMatch) {
return null;
} else if (arc.isLast()) {
return null;
} else {
- readNextRealArc(arc, in);
+ if (flag(flags, BIT_ARC_HAS_OUTPUT)) {
+ outputs.skipOutput(in);
+ }
+ if (flag(flags, BIT_ARC_HAS_FINAL_OUTPUT)) {
+ outputs.skipFinalOutput(in);
+ }
+ if (!flag(flags, BIT_STOP_NODE) && !flag(flags, BIT_TARGET_NEXT)) {
Review Comment:
Could we use `== false` instead? This more readable form reduces the chance
of accidental future refactoring bugs.
--
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
