Correct XCombinedFieldQuery equals and hashCode #75402
Merged
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
Previously the equals and hashCode methods only compared the query terms. This meant that queries on different fields, or with different field weights, were considered equal. During boolean query rewrites, duplicate clauses are removed. So because equals/ hashCode was incorrect, rewrites could accidentally drop combined_fields query clauses.
jtibshirani
added
>bug
:Search/Search
|
Corresponding Lucene issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10026. I copied over the fix that we merged in Lucene. |
|
Pinging @elastic/es-search (Team:Search) |
cbuescher
approved these changes
Jul 19, 2021
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
Out of interest: I saw the corresponding fix went into Lucene 8.10 so far, any plans on backportign those to 8.9 or not? Only asking since eventually we'll want to remove our version of the query and it would be good to know which Lucene version is equivalent to the current state.
|
@cbuescher Lucene 8.9.0 was actually already released, and I don't think it's common to do patch releases. If 8.9.1 does end up being planned, I will make sure to backport it. |
jtibshirani
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 19, 2021
Previously the equals and hashCode methods only compared the query terms. This meant that queries on different fields, or with different field weights, were considered equal. During boolean query rewrites, duplicate clauses are removed. So because equals/ hashCode was incorrect, rewrites could accidentally drop combined_fields query clauses.
jtibshirani
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 19, 2021
Previously the equals and hashCode methods only compared the query terms. This meant that queries on different fields, or with different field weights, were considered equal. During boolean query rewrites, duplicate clauses are removed. So because equals/ hashCode was incorrect, rewrites could accidentally drop combined_fields query clauses.
ywangd
pushed a commit
to ywangd/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2021
Previously the equals and hashCode methods only compared the query terms. This meant that queries on different fields, or with different field weights, were considered equal. During boolean query rewrites, duplicate clauses are removed. So because equals/ hashCode was incorrect, rewrites could accidentally drop combined_fields query clauses.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Previously the equals and hashCode methods only compared the query terms. This
meant that queries on different fields, or with different field weights, were
considered equal.
During boolean query rewrites, duplicate clauses are removed. So because equals/
hashCode was incorrect, rewrites could accidentally drop combined_fields query
clauses.
Fixes #75223.