Yes - in many cases, the other wins outweigh the queue transition cost - in some cases it does not.
But we are talking degradation as you add more segments, not pure speed. Degradation is worse now in the sort case. John Wang wrote: > With many other coding that happened in 2.9, e.g. the PQ api etc., sorting > is actually faster than 2.4. > -John > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Bill Au wrote: >> >>> Since Lucene 2.9 has per segment searching/caching, does query >>> >> performance >> >>> degrade less than before (2.9) as more segments are added to the index? >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >> I think non sorting cases are actually faster now over multiple segments >> - though you will still see performance degrade pretty signif. over a >> single segment (I've measured even 5 segments as being 15-20% slower). >> Doesn't really help the degrade, but should be faster at each point. >> >> Sorting is a bit different - you have to convert the p-queue as you go >> from segment to segment - so the more segments (which also generally >> means more larger segments), the more conversion you have to do. This >> didn't appear to be to bad unless you got up to quite a few segments . >> Worse degradation though. >> >> -- >> - Mark >> >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> > > -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
