Hello,
We have a couple of custom token filters that use CachingTokenFilter
internally. However, when we try to test them with MockTokenizer so that we can
have these nice TokenStream API checks that it provides, the tests fail with:
"java.lang.AssertionError: end() called before incrementToken
) returns false".
Spyros
On Monday, March 23, 2015 9:12 PM, Ahmet Arslan
wrote:
Hi Spyros,
Not 100% sure but I think you should override reset method.
@Override
public void reset() throws IOException {
super.reset();
cachedInput = null;
}
Ahmet
On Monday, March 23, 2015 1:29
://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Spyros Kapnissis [mailto:ska...@yahoo.com.INVALID]
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 11:02 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org; Ahmet Arslan
> Subject: Re: CachingTokenFilter tests fail when using MockTokenizer
&
Hello all,
I noticed while debugging a query that BooleanQuery will rewrite itself to
remove FILTER clauses that are also MUST as an optimization/simplification,
which makes total sense. So (+f:x #f:x) will become (+f:x).
However, shouldn't there also be another optimization to remove FILTER clau
Hm, I hadn't really thought about the minShouldMatch part, I thought it' d be
covered but I see your point being semantically different if you keep it as is.
However.. Running your edge case example on an actual local index I get the
following:
"(X X Y #X)" w/minshouldmatch=2 vs. (+X X Y) w/minsh
hes to simplify boolean queries
at rewrite time are welcome!
Le mar. 9 août 2016 à 00:47, Spyros Kapnissis a
écrit :
> Hm, I hadn't really thought about the minShouldMatch part, I thought it' d
> be covered but I see your point being semantically different if you keep it
> as is.
2016 à 12:21, Spyros Kapnissis a
écrit :
> Ok, I had some time to look a bit further into it. It seems that indeed a
> SHOULD clause with FILTER is equivalent with an AND clause with a
> minShouldMatch of -1 in terms of both the number of results and score.
> My reasoning goes like th
Hello all!
We discovered an issue while testing, where some infrequent queries would
return really strange results.
We use a client-side formula to auto generate boost queries for some fields
based on some external weights. It turns out that these external weights,
if really small, they might tak
