[GitHub] [lucene-solr] jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits

2019-07-09 Thread GitBox
jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/754#issuecomment-509595902 > Too bad we cannot share any (of this complex) code with existing collectors The initial PR tried to share

[GitHub] [lucene-solr] jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits

2019-07-09 Thread GitBox
jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/754#issuecomment-509557029 Also tests run in several seconds right now, which is too slow. Can we make them run faster?

[GitHub] [lucene-solr] jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits

2019-07-09 Thread GitBox
jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/754#issuecomment-509556840 Have you run tests? `TestLargeNumHitsTopDocsCollector.testLargeNumAndSparseHits` fails all the time for me.

[GitHub] [lucene-solr] jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits

2019-07-08 Thread GitBox
jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/754#issuecomment-509197617 @atris FYI avoiding force pushes would be helpful to reviewers as we could then look at what exactly changed

[GitHub] [lucene-solr] jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits

2019-07-05 Thread GitBox
jpountz commented on issue #754: LUCENE-8875: Introduce Optimized Collector For Large Number Of Hits URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/754#issuecomment-508796547 > That would require a different PriorityQueue implementation Actually I don't think we need a growable