[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1593?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12702695#action_12702695
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-1593:
------------------------------------
I'm ready to attach the patch, still need to run some perf measurements with
it, but that's orthogonal. I ran "ant clean test" and all tests passed, except
for TestSort in tag. The reason is because the test is invalid (asserts that a
bug exists), and so we'll need to change TestSort in tag in order for it to
pass, when this issue is committed (and the bug in MultiSearcher is fixed).
How should I do it? Just attach a separate patch for tag? This also warrants a
change in common-build.xml, to upgrade to the new tag, which I don't know how
it will be named yet. Which brings me back to a question I asked recently on
LUCENE-1529 - why can't we test the branch by default in test-tag, which means
the latest tag? We already today test against the latest tag, only we need to
define it explicitly, which leaves room for errors in case we forget to tag it,
or change common-build.xml accordingly. Instead, we can allow one to specify a
tag name (as -D option) and if specified, we test against that tag name, or
otherwise we test against the branch. Wouldn't that:
* Still allow people to test trunk against a specific tag?
* Be more robust in terms that trunk's test-tag always executes against the
latest branch, and we won't be required to modify common-build.xml every time
we change the tag?
Perhaps the latter can even let us to change 2.4's branch a couple of times
during a release, but create a single tag that's compliant with that release in
its end? E.g., we've already created 1 tag because of changes to the trunk
(future 2.9) and now we'll need another change. But from what I understand,
When 2.9 comes out, we only need one 2.4 tag which matches the changes done
against 2.9?
Anyway, that's a side discussion. For this issue, we need to update TestSort in
2.4 branch regardless. Whatever we decide about branch/tag policy will only
affect whether I'll need to update common-build.xml before/after the tag is
created.
> Optimizations to TopScoreDocCollector and TopFieldCollector
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1593
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1593
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Fix For: 2.9
>
>
> This is a spin-off of LUCENE-1575 and proposes to optimize TSDC and TFC code
> to remove unnecessary checks. The plan is:
> # Ensure that IndexSearcher returns segements in increasing doc Id order,
> instead of numDocs().
> # Change TSDC and TFC's code to not use the doc id as a tie breaker. New docs
> will always have larger ids and therefore cannot compete.
> # Pre-populate HitQueue with sentinel values in TSDC (score = Float.NEG_INF)
> and remove the check if reusableSD == null.
> # Also move to use "changing top" and then call adjustTop(), in case we
> update the queue.
> # some methods in Sort explicitly add SortField.FIELD_DOC as a "tie breaker"
> for the last SortField. But, doing so should not be necessary (since we
> already break ties by docID), and is in fact less efficient (once the above
> optimization is in).
> # Investigate PQ - can we deprecate insert() and have only
> insertWithOverflow()? Add a addDummyObjects method which will populate the
> queue without "arranging" it, just store the objects in the array (this can
> be used to pre-populate sentinel values)?
> I will post a patch as well as some perf measurements as soon as I have them.
--
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
