Got it. I thought you were talking about the class method, not the static
function.
Le jeu. 7 juin 2018 à 22:34, David Smiley a
écrit :
> I'll have to look further with the team on what these queries look like in
> terms of relative cheapness and throughput.
>
> RE
I'll have to look further with the team on what these queries look like in
terms of relative cheapness and throughput.
RE MinShouldMatchSumScorer.cost() (static method called by
Boolean2ScorerSupplier.computeCost) -- it's pretty easy to see that this
is called with minShouldMatch==0 (or 1). Set
I suspect this could only show up as a bottleneck if they run very cheap
queries (low cost) at a very high throughput? Is it the case? I've seen a
couple workloads like that in the past and profilers suggested that things
that usually do not matter were bottleneck like creating scorers or
deciding
I think that's right Michael -- some null scorers. Started with 3 in one
case and wound up with 1.
Also, in MinShouldMatchSumScorer.cost, sometimes the size of the
PriorityQueue isn't needed at all, which is when minShouldMatch is 0 or 1.
In that case, simply sum the costs.
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018
Doesn't BQ rewrite itself if it has only one clause?
Or maybe if there were more than one clause, and then all but one of them
had null scorers (on SHOULD clauses) you could wind up in that state?
Mike McCandless
http://blog.mikemccandless.com
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:21 PM, David Smiley
