[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550?page=comments#action_12451780 ] Karl Wettin commented on LUCENE-550: ------------------------------------
wolfgang hoschek [21/Nov/06 12:50 PM] > Ok. That means a basic test passes. For some more exhaustive tests, run all > the queries in All Lucene unit tests have been adapted to work with my alternate index. Everything but proximity queries pass. Have not looked in to why as I don't use them (yet). And I have written an in depth index comparator to make sure that an InstantiatedIndex equals a Directory implementation. Hence I have already verified that the index works as expected. Todays postings from me is more to show that InstantiatedIndex is /almost/ as fast as MemoryIndex and could thus be an interesting replacement, as as it handles more than one document it might even be preferable in some cases. I will however run your suggested tests tomorrow and report back. And post the latest patches, including my adaptation of your unit test, in case you want to explore it by your self. > InstanciatedIndex - faster but memory consuming index > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Key: LUCENE-550 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: New Feature > Components: Store > Affects Versions: 1.9 > Reporter: Karl Wettin > Attachments: class_diagram.png, class_diagram.png, > instanciated_20060527.tar, InstanciatedIndexTermEnum.java, > lucene.1.9-karl1.jpg, lucene2-karl_20060722.tar.gz, > lucene2-karl_20060723.tar.gz > > > After fixing the bugs, it's now 4.5 -> 5 times the speed. This is true for > both at index and query time. Sorry if I got your hopes up too much. There > are still things to be done though. Might not have time to do anything with > this until next month, so here is the code if anyone wants a peek. > Not good enough for Jira yet, but if someone wants to fool around with it, > here it is. The implementation passes a TermEnum -> TermDocs -> Fields -> > TermVector comparation against the same data in a Directory. > When it comes to features, offsets don't exists and positions are stored ugly > and has bugs. > You might notice that norms are float[] and not byte[]. That is me who > refactored it to see if it would do any good. Bit shifting don't take many > ticks, so I might just revert that. > I belive the code is quite self explaining. > InstanciatedIndex ii = .. > ii.new InstanciatedIndexReader(); > ii.addDocument(s).. replace IndexWriter for now. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
