On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Michael McCandless < luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> Nice results! Comments below... > > > Here are the numbers (times are measured in nanoseconds): > > > > numHits = 50: > > > > Lucene 2.9/OneComparatorNonScoringCollector: > > num string compares: 251 > > num conversions: 34 > > time: 15272049 > > cpu time: 161105 > > num inserts into PQ: 211 > > > > My test sort algorithm: > > num string compares: 51 > > num conversions: 0 > > time: 14943172 > > cpu time: 153722 > > num inserts into PQ: 1500 > > > > > > numHits = 100: > > > > > > Lucene 2.9/OneComparatorNonScoringCollector: > > num string compares: 2285 > > num conversions: 172 > > time: 17703866 > > cpu time: 187073 > > num inserts into PQ: 982 > > > > My test sort algorithm: > > num string compares: 210 > > num conversions: 0 > > time: 15823473 > > cpu time: 160737 > > num inserts into PQ: 6011 > > These are nice results. Single PQ does looks faster for this case. > You mean multiPQ, right?
