[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6645?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-6645: --------------------------------------- Attachment: LUCENE-6645.patch I think with this small change to the builder, we can save one if check in the add method. In the BKD test this gives a good gain ... from 3.08 sec in trunk down to 2.32 sec ... > BKD tree queries should use BitDocIdSet.Builder > ----------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-6645 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6645 > Project: Lucene - Core > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Attachments: LUCENE-6645.patch, LUCENE-6645.patch, LUCENE-6645.patch, > LUCENE-6645.patch, LUCENE-6645.patch > > > When I was iterating on BKD tree originally I remember trying to use this > builder (which makes a sparse bit set at first and then upgrades to dense if > enough bits get set) and being disappointed with its performance. > I wound up just making a FixedBitSet every time, but this is obviously > wasteful for small queries. > It could be the perf was poor because I was always .or'ing in DISIs that had > 512 - 1024 hits each time (the size of each leaf cell in the BKD tree)? I > also had to make my own DISI wrapper around each leaf cell... maybe that was > the source of the slowness, not sure. > I also sort of wondered whether the SmallDocSet in spatial module (backed by > a SentinelIntSet) might be faster ... though it'd need to be sorted in the > and after building before returning to Lucene. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org