[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-855?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12487897
 ] 

Andy Liu commented on LUCENE-855:
---------------------------------

Hey Matt, I get this exception when running your newest FCRF with the 
performance test.  Can you check to see if you get this also?

java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 100000
        at 
org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheRangeFilter$5.get(FieldCacheRangeFilter.java:231)
        at 
org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher$1.collect(IndexSearcher.java:136)
        at org.apache.lucene.search.Scorer.score(Scorer.java:49)
        at org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.search(IndexSearcher.java:146)
        at org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.search(IndexSearcher.java:113)
        at org.apache.lucene.search.Hits.getMoreDocs(Hits.java:74)
        at org.apache.lucene.search.Hits.<init>(Hits.java:53)
        at org.apache.lucene.search.Searcher.search(Searcher.java:46)
        at 
org.apache.lucene.misc.TestRangeFilterPerformanceComparison$Benchmark.go(TestRangeFilterPerformanceComparison.java:312)
        at 
org.apache.lucene.misc.TestRangeFilterPerformanceComparison.testPerformance(TestRangeFilterPerformanceComparison.java:201)
        at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
        at 
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
        at 
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
        at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runTest(TestCase.java:154)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:127)
        at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124)
        at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109)
        at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208)
        at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203)
        at 
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:128)
        at 
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38)
        at 
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:460)
        at 
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:673)
        at 
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:386)
        at 
org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:196)



> MemoryCachedRangeFilter to boost performance of Range queries
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-855
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-855
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 2.1
>            Reporter: Andy Liu
>         Assigned To: Otis Gospodnetic
>         Attachments: FieldCacheRangeFilter.patch, 
> FieldCacheRangeFilter.patch, FieldCacheRangeFilter.patch, 
> FieldCacheRangeFilter.patch, MemoryCachedRangeFilter.patch, 
> MemoryCachedRangeFilter_1.4.patch, TestRangeFilterPerformanceComparison.java, 
> TestRangeFilterPerformanceComparison.java
>
>
> Currently RangeFilter uses TermEnum and TermDocs to find documents that fall 
> within the specified range.  This requires iterating through every single 
> term in the index and can get rather slow for large document sets.
> MemoryCachedRangeFilter reads all <docId, value> pairs of a given field, 
> sorts by value, and stores in a SortedFieldCache.  During bits(), binary 
> searches are used to find the start and end indices of the lower and upper 
> bound values.  The BitSet is populated by all the docId values that fall in 
> between the start and end indices.
> TestMemoryCachedRangeFilterPerformance creates a 100K RAMDirectory-backed 
> index with random date values within a 5 year range.  Executing bits() 1000 
> times on standard RangeQuery using random date intervals took 63904ms.  Using 
> MemoryCachedRangeFilter, it took 876ms.  Performance increase is less 
> dramatic when you have less unique terms in a field or using less number of 
> documents.
> Currently MemoryCachedRangeFilter only works with numeric values (values are 
> stored in a long[] array) but it can be easily changed to support Strings.  A 
> side "benefit" of storing the values are stored as longs, is that there's no 
> longer the need to make the values lexographically comparable, i.e. padding 
> numeric values with zeros.
> The downside of using MemoryCachedRangeFilter is there's a fairly significant 
> memory requirement.  So it's designed to be used in situations where range 
> filter performance is critical and memory consumption is not an issue.  The 
> memory requirements are: (sizeof(int) + sizeof(long)) * numDocs.  
> MemoryCachedRangeFilter also requires a warmup step which can take a while to 
> run in large datasets (it took 40s to run on a 3M document corpus).  Warmup 
> can be called explicitly or is automatically called the first time 
> MemoryCachedRangeFilter is applied using a given field.
> So in summery, MemoryCachedRangeFilter can be useful when:
> - Performance is critical
> - Memory is not an issue
> - Field contains many unique numeric values
> - Index contains large amount of documents

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to