>> I guess I should be more clear in the email. No - If you mentioned before the other info and I missed it, just say: Mark you don't know what your talking about it and you missed the info. Thats what I'd do.
You just caught me at a time when I'm trying to get these tests going myself, and a little frustrated at the lack of info. I'd consider trying Java 6 vs Java 1.5 or something on Linux, but with no reason why I should, its like .. come on - throw me a bone. John Wang wrote: > Mike: > > I did just post with what I saw, feel free to read and comment > on it. > > I am simply trying to work with Michael on this and trying to > understand the code. > > As I have expressed previously, I have seen a difference > between 1.5 and 1.6 that is significant. Since Mike has posted some > numbers on jdk 1.6, I was hoping to eliminate all variables relating > to the index and environment and see if he sees the same thing. > > I guess I should be more clear in the email. > > -John > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com > <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I am patient :) And I'm not speaking for Mike, I'm speaking for > me. I'm > wondering what your seeing. Asking Mike to rerun the tests without > giving any further info (you didn't even say that your seeing > something > different) is unfair to the rest of us ;) > > Giving 0 info along with your request just makes 0 sense to me and I > said as much. > > John Wang wrote: > > Mark: > > > > Please be patient with me. I am seeing a difference and was > > wondering if Mike would see the same thing. I thought Michael > would be > > willing to because he expressed interest in understanding what the > > performance discrepancies are. > > > > Again, it is only a request. It is perfectly fine if Michael > > refuses to. But it would be great if Michael speaks for himself. > > > > Thanks > > > > -John > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Mark Miller > <markrmil...@gmail.com <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com> > > <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com <mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com>>> > wrote: > > > > Why? What might he find? Whats with the cryptic request? > > > > Why would Java 1.5 perform better than 1.6? It erases 20 and 40% > > gains? > > > > I know point 2 certainly doesn't. Cards on the table? > > > > John Wang wrote: > > > Hey Michael: > > > > > > Would you mind rerunning the test you have with jdk1.5? > > > > > > Also, if you would, change the comparator method to > avoid > > > brachning for int and string comparators, e.g. > > > > > > > > > return index.order[i.doc] - index.order[j.doc]; > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > -John > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Michael McCandless > > > <luc...@mikemccandless.com > <mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com> > <mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com <mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com>> > > <mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com > <mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com> > > <mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com > <mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com>>>> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:17 AM, John Wang > > <john.w...@gmail.com <mailto:john.w...@gmail.com> > <mailto:john.w...@gmail.com <mailto:john.w...@gmail.com>> > > > <mailto:john.w...@gmail.com > <mailto:john.w...@gmail.com> <mailto:john.w...@gmail.com > <mailto:john.w...@gmail.com>>>> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I have been playing with the patch, and I think I > > have some > > > information > > > > that you might like. > > > > Let me spend sometime and gather some more > numbers and > > > update in jira. > > > > > > Excellent! > > > > > > > say bottom has ords 23, 45, 76, each > corresponding to a > > > string. When > > > > moving to the next segment, you need to make bottom to > > have ords > > > that can be > > > > comparable to other docs in this new segment, so you > would > > need > > > to find the > > > > new ords for the values in 23,45 and 76, don't you? To > > find it, > > > assuming the > > > > values are s1,s2,s3, you would do a bin. search on > the new val > > > array, and > > > > find index for s1,s2,s3. > > > > > > It's that inversion (from ord->Comparable in first > seg, and > > > Comparable->ord in second seg) that I'm trying to > avoid (w/ > > this new > > > proposal). > > > > > > > Which is 3 bin searches per convert, I am not sure > > > > how you can short circuit it. Are you suggesting we call > > > Comparable on > > > > compareBottom until some doc beats it? > > > > > > I'm saying on seg transition you indeed get the Comparable > > for current > > > bottom, but, don't attempt to invert it. Instead, as > seg 2 > > finds a > > > hit, you get that hit's Comparables and compare to bottom. > > If it > > > beats bottom, it goes into the queue. If it does not, you > > use the ord > > > (in seg 2's ord space) to "learn" a bottom in the ord > space > > of seg 2. > > > > > > > That would hurt performance I lot though, no? > > > > > > Yeah I think likely it would, since we're talking > about a binary > > > search on transition VS having to do possibly many > > > upgrade-to-Comparable and compare-Comparabls to slowly > learn the > > > equivalent ord in the new segment. I was proposing it for > > cases where > > > inversion is very difficult. But realistically, since you > > must keep > > > around the ful ord -> Comparable for every segment anyway > > (in order to > > > merge in the end), inversion shouldn't ever actually be > > "difficult" -- > > > it'd just be a binary search on presumably in-RAM storage. > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org>> > > > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org>>> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org>> > > > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > - Mark > > > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org>> > > > > > > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > <mailto:java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org> > > -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
