if a filter can support random access API, we should use it
-----------------------------------------------------------
Key: LUCENE-1536
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1536
Project: Lucene - Java
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: Search
Affects Versions: 2.4
Reporter: Michael McCandless
Assignee: Michael McCandless
Priority: Minor
I ran some performance tests, comparing applying a filter via
random-access API instead of current trunk's iterator API.
This was inspired by LUCENE-1476, where we realized deletions should
really be implemented just like a filter, but then in testing found
that switching deletions to iterator was a very sizable performance
hit.
Some notes on the test:
* Index is first 2M docs of Wikipedia. Test machine is Mac OS X
10.5.6, quad core Intel CPU, 6 GB RAM, java 1.6.0_07-b06-153.
* I test across multiple queries. 1-X means an OR query, eg 1-4
means 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4, whereas +1-4 is an AND query, ie 1 AND 2
AND 3 AND 4. "u s" means "united states" (phrase search).
* I test with multiple filter densities (0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 75, 90,
95, 98, 99, 99.99999 (filter is non-null but all bits are set),
100 (filter=null, control)).
* Method high means I use random-access filter API in
IndexSearcher's main loop. Method low means I use random-access
filter API down in SegmentTermDocs (just like deleted docs
today).
* Baseline (QPS) is current trunk, where filter is applied as iterator up
"high" (ie in IndexSearcher's search loop).
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
