DisjunctionMaxQuery shouldn't depend on disjunct order for equals checks #783
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
|
For posterity, this is a port of apache/lucene#110, although there are some significant differences from how it was done there. This also changes the public API surface of DisjunctionMaxQuery's Disjuncts property, which is a breaking change, so I think my vote would be to hold this for a future release. I'm going to put this in the Future milestone unless @NightOwl888 wants me to pull it in for the next beta. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fix #779 . The original fix in Lucene relied on its own implementation of multiset, a similar one is ported in this PR.
The changes break the consistence with the behavior of Lucene 4.8, but at least provide a solution for those who meet the same problem.