[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5860?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14081213#comment-14081213
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-5860:
--------------------------------------------
I don't think there's that much added complexity here?
The changes to NRQ look biggish only because I factored out common code; I
could dup the code instead and the changes would look smaller ...
I think the possibility of saving disk seeks for the coldish case makes this a
worthwhile opto. I'll probably have trouble showing the gains in the
luceneutil benchmark ... I can try forcing it to be cold (Robert wrote a cool
tool for this!) but that's somewhat synthetic.
Net/net I still think we should commit both.
> Use Terms.getMin/Max to speed up range queries/filters
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-5860
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5860
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 5.0, 4.10
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-5860.patch
>
>
> As of LUCENE-5610, Lucene's Terms API now exposes min and max terms in
> each field. I think we can use this in our term/numeric range
> query/filters to avoid visiting a given segment by detecting up front
> that the terms in the segment don't overlap with the query's range.
> Even though block tree avoids disk seeks in certain cases when the
> term cannot exist on-disk, I think this change would further avoid
> disk seeks in additional cases because the min/max term has
> more/different information than the in-memory FST terms index.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
