Very cool. Any known drawbacks to this approach?
On 10/22/05, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > FunctionQuery matches all documents, so you normally want to use it as > part > of a BooleanQuery with another mandatory clause. That will cause only > documents matching the other clause to be scored (the BooleanScorer takes > care of that logic). > > The score FunctionQuery produces is from the function alone (no relevancy > stuff like idf, tf, lengthNorm, or anything else). > > If you want to sort by that score alone, then boost the other parts of the > query to 0. > > So, (MyQuery, sorted by MyFunkySort), becomes > ((+MyQuery^0 MyFunctionQuery), sorted by score) > > -Yonik > Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706 > > On 10/22/05, Jeff Rodenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > This is really interesting, I haven't revved our code to this version > yet. > > Does the score returned by FunctionQuery supersede underlying relevance > > scoring or is it rolled in at some base class? > > > > -- j > > > > On 10/22/05, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I'm not sure what type of score you are trying to do, but maybe > > > FunctionQuery would help. > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-446 > > > > > > -Yonik > > > Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706 > > > > > > On 10/22/05, Jeff Rodenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have a custom sort that completes calculations on-the-fly, similar > > to > > > > the > > > > LIA distance sort. SortField type is Float. It works, but I need > > better > > > > performance. I'm wondering if there's a better way to do this. > > > > > > > > As a rule, the number of results returned in a given search will > most > > > > often > > > > be a fraction of the total documents in the search indexes. For > > example, > > > > 1000 results would be a rather large result set for what I'm > > expecting. > > > > The > > > > aggregate index document count is in the range of 20 million. > > > > > > > > The standard process of looping through the TermDocs from readers > for > > > the > > > > aggregate index seems wasteful in this scenario, given the relative > > > number > > > > of results to the overall size of the index. What are my options > here? > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > jeff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
