[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1410?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12852885#action_12852885
]
Renaud Delbru commented on LUCENE-1410:
---------------------------------------
{quote}
Curious that PFOR/FOR don't do well during searching... have you tried
profiling? Maybe something silly is going one.
{quote}
I will try profiling. But I am surprised, because I am using the same
*IndexInput and *IndexOutut than for the first benchmark. So, if there is a
problem, it should be "outside" the indexinput.
But, I'll double check.
{quote}
One issue is MUST mixed with other clauses - the scoring for such a query will
do alot of seeking, which for block based codecs will be costly. But it's still
strange you don't see speedups for single term query. Have you tried only
SHOULD clauses?
{quote}
Here is the results with only SHOULD clause.
h6. HIGH:SHOULD HIGH:SHOULD HIGH:SHOULD HIGH:SHOULD - 1 thread - 200 random
queries
||Codec||Avg Query Time||
|Rice|6 ms|
|VInt|5 ms|
|PFOR|6.5 ms|
|FOR|6.8 ms|
|S9|4.7 ms|
> PFOR implementation
> -------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1410
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1410
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Other
> Reporter: Paul Elschot
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: autogen.tgz, for-summary.txt,
> LUCENE-1410-codecs.tar.bz2, LUCENE-1410b.patch, LUCENE-1410c.patch,
> LUCENE-1410d.patch, LUCENE-1410e.patch, TermQueryTests.tgz, TestPFor2.java,
> TestPFor2.java, TestPFor2.java
>
> Original Estimate: 21840h
> Remaining Estimate: 21840h
>
> Implementation of Patched Frame of Reference.
--
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
