-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove scoreAll() optimization from DefaultBulkScorer. #14039
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
I cannot see benefits from this optimization anymore when running luceneutil. However, I do see some benefits from specializing cases when the collector produces a competitive iterator or when the scorer produces a two-phase iterator.
|
This PR has not had activity in the past 2 weeks, labeling it as stale. If the PR is waiting for review, notify the [email protected] list. Thank you for your contribution! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. Left one very minor question/comment.
collector.collect(doc); | ||
} | ||
|
||
doc = iterator.nextDoc(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: Any reason to not put this in the for-loop control statement itself? Seems slightly more idiomatic?
This PR has not had activity in the past 2 weeks, labeling it as stale. If the PR is waiting for review, notify the [email protected] list. Thank you for your contribution! |
I cannot see benefits from this optimization anymore when running luceneutil. However, I do see some benefits from specializing cases when the collector produces a competitive iterator or when the scorer produces a two-phase iterator.