Mailing List Archive

Making org.apache.lucene.search.join.TermsQuery Public
Hi,

In Lucene.NET we had a request from an end user to make org.apache.lucene.search.join.TermsQuery (and its constructor) public because it seems to outperform BooleanQuery.

https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/issues/413

This request seems reasonable, but I just wanted to check why the class was made package private in Lucene? Would this be something you would consider making public?


Thanks,

Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)

Project Chairperson - Apache Lucene.NET
Re: Making org.apache.lucene.search.join.TermsQuery Public [ In reply to ]
I'm not really sure why we have these two different implementations,
but TermInSetQuery (which is public, and in core) provides a similar
function -- have you compared the performance of the two?

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:57 PM Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> In Lucene.NET we had a request from an end user to make org.apache.lucene.search.join.TermsQuery (and its constructor) public because it seems to outperform BooleanQuery.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/issues/413
>
>
>
> This request seems reasonable, but I just wanted to check why the class was made package private in Lucene? Would this be something you would consider making public?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>
> Project Chairperson – Apache Lucene.NET
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
RE: Making org.apache.lucene.search.join.TermsQuery Public [ In reply to ]
Hi Michael,

We are still working on the port of 4.8.0, and TermInSetQuery doesn’t exist in this version. I took a quick look, and it looks like there are some missing Automaton dependencies that would need to be ported to support it, and I am not sure how deep that rabbit hole goes. But I think it is safe to say that the OP hasn't attempted this due to how complex of a task it would be.

Unfortunately, this isn’t my issue. I am reporting 2nd hand, so would appreciate if you would reply to the OP directly if you have any similar questions.

https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/issues/413

But I think you have answered my question. It wouldn't be sensible to have 2 similar query implementations marked public in Lucene, especially when TermInSetQuery is a newer implementation.

Thanks,
Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
Project Chairperson – Apache Lucene.NET

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Sokolov <msokolov@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 9:02 AM
To: Lucene Dev <dev@lucene.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Making org.apache.lucene.search.join.TermsQuery Public

I'm not really sure why we have these two different implementations, but TermInSetQuery (which is public, and in core) provides a similar function -- have you compared the performance of the two?

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:57 PM Shad Storhaug <shad@shadstorhaug.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> In Lucene.NET we had a request from an end user to make org.apache.lucene.search.join.TermsQuery (and its constructor) public because it seems to outperform BooleanQuery.
>
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/lucenenet/issues/413
>
>
>
> This request seems reasonable, but I just wanted to check why the class was made package private in Lucene? Would this be something you would consider making public?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shad Storhaug (NightOwl888)
>
> Project Chairperson – Apache Lucene.NET
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????F?V?7V'67&?&R?R???âFWb?V?7V'67&?&T?V6V?R?6?R??&p?f?"FF?F????6????G2?R???âFWb?V??V6V?R?6?R??&p?