I like how you figured out how to add DocValues without having to modify
PointVectorStrategy at all -- nice.
But I think you are completely using PointVectorStrategy, even for
filtering (query)? It does a relatively slow job at that; I suggested
using RecursivePrefixTreeStrategy for the filtering part. RPT should use
less memory for filtering than PointVector. (in theory; I haven't measured)
The memory shouldn't increase over time if you are not adding new documents
as well. There ought to be a warm-up period up front but it ought the
memory use should stabilize. Perhaps there is an issue in your approach to
measuring this.
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:26 PM sc <scattaman...@4info.com> wrote:
> David,
>
> I was able to get it working with minor changes in my codebase. I didn't
> have back port PointVectorStrategy class from 6.6.0 to 5.5.4
>
> Code:
> final int maxNumberOfCachedQueries = 256;
> final long maxRamBytesUsed = 50 * 1024L * 1024L; // 50MB
>
> final QueryCache queryCache = new
> LRUQueryCache(maxNumberOfCachedQueries,
> maxRamBytesUsed);
> final QueryCachingPolicy defaultCachingPolicy = new
> UsageTrackingQueryCachingPolicy();
>
> this.strategy = new PointVectorStrategy(ctx, "pointvector");
>
> Indexing:
> doc.add(new DoubleDocValuesField("pointvector__x",
> longitude));
> doc.add(new DoubleDocValuesField("pointvector__y",
> latitude));
>
> Point pt = ctx.makePoint(longitude, latitude);
> for (IndexableField f :
> strategy.createIndexableFields(pt)) {
> doc.add(f);
> }
>
> doc.add(new StoredField(strategy.getFieldName(), pt.getX()
> + " " +
> pt.getY()));
>
> Searching :
>
> Point p = ctx.makePoint(lng, lat);
> Circle c = ctx.makeCircle(lng, lat, deg);
> SpatialArgs args = new
> SpatialArgs(SpatialOperation.Intersects, c);
> Query query = strategy.makeQuery(args);
>
> ValueSource valueSource =
> strategy.makeDistanceValueSource(p);
> Sort distSort = new
> Sort(valueSource.getSortField(false)).rewrite(searcher);
>
> int limit = 10;
> TopDocs topDocs = searcher.search(query, limit, distSort);
>
>
> While, I was able to get almost similar performance when compared with
> later
> versions of Lucene 6.6.0, but the memory consumption is more with Lucene
> 5.5.4 almost 5x.
>
> I am testing with 30K Lat/Lon and memory increases overtime.
>
> Any suggestions to improve memory consumption or code?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Lucene-GeoNear-Search-and-Sort-Performance-tp4343468p4346726.html
> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
> --
Lucene/Solr Search Committer, Consultant, Developer, Author, Speaker
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley | Book:
http://www.solrenterprisesearchserver.com
