[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1593?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12705874#action_12705874
]
Shai Erera commented on LUCENE-1593:
------------------------------------
bq. shouldn't we do the interface -> abstract class migration (of Weight &
Searchable) under a separate issue?
I think I asked it already but haven't received a concrete answer.
This issue moved TSDC and TFC to always assume "in-order" collection of
documents. If BS is used, they will break for the documents that compare
equally to the top of the queue. Therefore we wanted to be able to create the
right variant of TFC/TSDC depending on the Scorer we're going to get.
I offered somewhere above (or at least intended to) that we keep the changes
I've done to TSDC and TFC (allowing to create in/out-of order variant) and in
IndexSearcher always ask for out-of-order, then in a separate issue make all
these changes and really take advantage of the in-order variants unless BS is
used (or any other future Scorer for that matter).
I don't mind doing that. I also volunteer to open the next issue and take care
of it. Is that what you had in mind?
> 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
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1593.patch, LUCENE-1593.patch, PerfTest.java
>
>
> 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
