Skip to content

Conversation

iverase
Copy link
Contributor

@iverase iverase commented Sep 30, 2025

Return an Impact object with freqs equal to 1 instead of Integer.MAX_VALUE.

Note that this bug does not exists in main as it was fixed in #15151

Iam working on adding a test

@iverase iverase requested a review from gf2121 September 30, 2025 14:29
@iverase
Copy link
Contributor Author

iverase commented Sep 30, 2025

Added a single test here and open #15266 for a bigger coverage in the active branches.

Copy link
Member

@benwtrent benwtrent left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems correct to me.

curious as to what @gf2121 thinks

Copy link
Contributor

@ChrisHegarty ChrisHegarty left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@ChrisHegarty
Copy link
Contributor

If not already the case, let’s forward port the test to main.

@iverase
Copy link
Contributor Author

iverase commented Oct 1, 2025

@ChrisHegarty see #15266

@iverase iverase merged commit 8e0c596 into apache:branch_10_3 Oct 1, 2025
4 checks passed
@iverase iverase deleted the lucene103PostingFormatFix branch October 1, 2025 11:49
(No changes)
* GITHUB#15263: Fix the returned Impact returned from Lucene103PostingsReader when frequencies
are not indexed. It was returning a wrong frequency in that case affecting scoring which
might led to performance issues. (Ignacio Vera)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: maybe replace "wrong" with "suboptimal" since it's correct to return impact scores that are much higher than they should, just suboptimal as it hurts dynamic pruning?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done in 25d6374

@jpountz
Copy link
Contributor

jpountz commented Oct 1, 2025

For the record, this looks good to me!

@msfroh
Copy link
Contributor

msfroh commented Oct 1, 2025

Wasn't this already fixed in #14511 ?

@benwtrent
Copy link
Member

yes @msfroh apparently in all the shuffle with the new postings, it was accidentally overwritten and then fixed again in main, but never backported. Quite the kerfuffle :D

@msfroh
Copy link
Contributor

msfroh commented Oct 1, 2025

Ahh -- looks like #14557 backported the 101 postings reader to 10_x, but missed the 103 postings reader.

@benwtrent benwtrent added this to the 10.3.1 milestone Oct 1, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants