[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1575?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12695868#action_12695868
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1575:
--------------------------------------------
OK I ran it like this:
{code}
java -Xms1024M -Xmx1024M -Xbatch -server -cp
build/classes/java:../lucene.collection PerfTest /lucene/fake
{code}
Across these OS/JRE versions:
||OS||JRE||Trunk||Patch||%tg change||
|Linux|1.6.0_10|1075 ms|1120 ms|-4.2%|
|Linux|1.5.0_08|1156 ms|1199 ms|-3.7%|
|OS X|1.6.0_07 (64bit)|774 ms|823 ms|-6.3%|
|OS X|1.5.0_16|987 ms|936 ms|5.2%|
|Win Svr 2003 (64bit)|1.6.0_11 (64bit)|1209 ms|1308 ms|-8.2%|
|Win Svr 2003 (64bit)|1.5.0_14 (64bit)|1559 ms|1564 ms|-0.3%|
Shai which OS/JRE did you run on?
Except for the JRE 1.5 cases on OS X and Win Svr 2003, things seem
generally slower with the patch, though I think the test is a little
too synthetic (sorting by doc reversed is far worse than a "normal"
fielded sort where I think the queue would typically fairly quickly
"converge"). Also, I think it's better to take min rather than avg
across all the runs.
> Refactoring Lucene collectors (HitCollector and extensions)
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1575
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1575
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1575.1.patch, LUCENE-1575.2.patch,
> LUCENE-1575.3.patch, LUCENE-1575.4.patch, LUCENE-1575.5.patch,
> LUCENE-1575.6.patch, LUCENE-1575.7.patch, LUCENE-1575.patch,
> LUCENE-1575.patch, LUCENE-1575.patch, sortBench5.py, sortCollate5.py
>
>
> This issue is a result of a recent discussion we've had on the mailing list.
> You can read the thread
> [here|http://www.nabble.com/Is-TopDocCollector%27s-collect()-implementation-correct--td22557419.html].
> We have agreed to do the following refactoring:
> * Rename MultiReaderHitCollector to Collector, with the purpose that it will
> be the base class for all Collector implementations.
> * Deprecate HitCollector in favor of the new Collector.
> * Introduce new methods in IndexSearcher that accept Collector, and deprecate
> those that accept HitCollector.
> ** Create a final class HitCollectorWrapper, and use it in the deprecated
> methods in IndexSearcher, wrapping the given HitCollector.
> ** HitCollectorWrapper will be marked deprecated, so we can remove it in 3.0,
> when we remove HitCollector.
> ** It will remove any instanceof checks that currently exist in IndexSearcher
> code.
> * Create a new (abstract) TopDocsCollector, which will:
> ** Leave collect and setNextReader unimplemented.
> ** Introduce protected members PriorityQueue and totalHits.
> ** Introduce a single protected constructor which accepts a PriorityQueue.
> ** Implement topDocs() and getTotalHits() using the PQ and totalHits members.
> These can be used as-are by extending classes, as well as be overridden.
> ** Introduce a new topDocs(start, howMany) method which will be used a
> convenience method when implementing a search application which allows paging
> through search results. It will also attempt to improve the memory
> allocation, by allocating a ScoreDoc[] of the requested size only.
> * Change TopScoreDocCollector to extend TopDocsCollector, use the topDocs()
> and getTotalHits() implementations as they are from TopDocsCollector. The
> class will also be made final.
> * Change TopFieldCollector to extend TopDocsCollector, and make the class
> final. Also implement topDocs(start, howMany).
> * Change TopFieldDocCollector (deprecated) to extend TopDocsCollector,
> instead of TopScoreDocCollector. Implement topDocs(start, howMany)
> * Review other places where HitCollector is used, such as in Scorer,
> deprecate those places and use Collector instead.
> Additionally, the following proposal was made w.r.t. decoupling score from
> collect():
> * Change collect to accecpt only a doc Id (unbased).
> * Introduce a setScorer(Scorer) method.
> * If during collect the implementation needs the score, it can call
> scorer.score().
> If we do this, then we need to review all places in the code where
> collect(doc, score) is called, and assert whether Scorer can be passed. Also
> this raises few questions:
> * What if during collect() Scorer is null? (i.e., not set) - is it even
> possible?
> * I noticed that many (if not all) of the collect() implementations discard
> the document if its score is not greater than 0. Doesn't it mean that score
> is needed in collect() always?
> Open issues:
> * The name for Collector
> * TopDocsCollector was mentioned on the thread as TopResultsCollector, but
> that was when we thought to call Colletor ResultsColletor. Since we decided
> (so far) on Collector, I think TopDocsCollector makes sense, because of its
> TopDocs output.
> * Decoupling score from collect().
> I will post a patch a bit later, as this is expected to be a very large
> patch. I will split it into 2: (1) code patch (2) test cases (moving to use
> Collector instead of HitCollector, as well as testing the new topDocs(start,
> howMany) method.
> There might be even a 3rd patch which handles the setScorer thing in
> Collector (maybe even a different issue?)
--
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]
