On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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?
Woops, sorry, right! Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
