Re: Distributed sort
thanks Erik On 12/3/05, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 3, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Jeff Rodenburg wrote: > > > In one of the Google Labs whitepapers ( > > http://labs.google.com/papers/mapreduce-osdi04.pdf), a programming > > construct > > known as MapReduce is used in a variety of jobs/tasks within Google's > > operation. As an example of the application of MapReduce, the > > whitepaper > > refers to Distributed Sorting. > > > > Essentially this looks like a data storage strategy to facilitate a > > distributed sort feature. How does this approach compare to Lucene's > > sorting mechanism? > > Look to Nutch to see how MapReduce is being implemented around Lucene > (but useful in other ways than Lucene also). > > Erik > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re[2]: Does order of BooleanQuery clauses affect search performance?
Hello Paul, Friday, August 26, 2005, 8:40:44 PM, you wrote: PE> On Friday 26 August 2005 17:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> A simple question and I guess it may have been asked before. >> >> Does the order of Querys in a BooleanQuery affect search speed? By this I >> mean if the first clause of a BooleanQuery only returns a few results and >> the second clause returns lots of results and the two are ANDed is this >> faster than the other way around? Similarly, does searching stop if no PE> Subqueries of BooleanQuery are called clauses in Lucene. PE> The order of clauses does not matter. PE> Having only required clauses does matter, normally a lot. >> results are found and the logical operations would mean no results can be >> found (similar to Javas "short circuiting" of logical operations)? PE> The development version tries to do as much "short circuiting" as possible. PE> Lucene 1.4.3 neither short circuits for "or" (optional clauses) PE> nor for "not" (prohibited clauses). PE> Both do short circuiting for "and" (required clauses). PE> Regards, PE> Paul Elschot PE> - PE> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PE> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Best regards, Maximmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re[2]: Does order of BooleanQuery clauses affect search performance?
Hello Paul, Friday, August 26, 2005, 8:40:44 PM, you wrote: PE> On Friday 26 August 2005 17:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> A simple question and I guess it may have been asked before. >> >> Does the order of Querys in a BooleanQuery affect search speed? By this I >> mean if the first clause of a BooleanQuery only returns a few results and >> the second clause returns lots of results and the two are ANDed is this >> faster than the other way around? Similarly, does searching stop if no PE> Subqueries of BooleanQuery are called clauses in Lucene. PE> The order of clauses does not matter. PE> Having only required clauses does matter, normally a lot. >> results are found and the logical operations would mean no results can be >> found (similar to Javas "short circuiting" of logical operations)? PE> The development version tries to do as much "short circuiting" as possible. PE> Lucene 1.4.3 neither short circuits for "or" (optional clauses) PE> nor for "not" (prohibited clauses). PE> Both do short circuiting for "and" (required clauses). PE> Regards, PE> Paul Elschot PE> - PE> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PE> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Best regards, Maximmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
