[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6917?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15045419#comment-15045419
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-6917:
--------------------------------------------
bq. Can you please link to the benchmarks you did?
The results are a bit scattered ... I need to re-run and I think get a
blog post out describing all of this, at some point ... but in the
meantime, here are the benchmmarks:
LUCENE-6901 has the most recent index-time benchmarks, and LUCENE-6891
has the most recent search-time benchmarks and LUCENE-6881 has the
NumericField baseline.
The sources for these benchmarks are all in luceneutil.
bq. And I'm curious why some uses, say BBoxStrategy to pick one example, still
use the Legacy version;
Because this is the simplest cutover I could do for now. For
{{BBoxStrategy}}, it would be a major change (you must reindex) to
switch from postings to {{DimensionalValues}} ... I think we should
switch over consumers of {{LegacyNumeric*}} in follow-on
issues?
> Move NumericField out of core to backwards-codecs
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-6917
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6917
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 6.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-6917.patch
>
>
> DimensionalValues seems to be better across the board (indexing time,
> indexing size, search-speed, search-time heap required) than NumericField, at
> least in my testing so far.
> I think for 6.0 we should move {{IntField}}, {{LongField}}, {{FloatField}},
> {{DoubleField}} and {{NumericRangeQuery}} to {{backward-codecs}}, and rename
> with {{Legacy}} prefix?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
