Re: ReadOnlyMultiSegmentReader bitset id vs doc id

2009-04-28 Thread patrick o'leary
Ok finally with some pointers from Ryan, figured out the last problem. So as a note to anyone else who might encounter the same problems with multireader A) Directories can contain multiple segments and a reader for those segments B) Searches are replayed within each reader in a serial fashion **

Re: ReadOnlyMultiSegmentReader bitset id vs doc id

2009-04-28 Thread Mark Miller
I'm not sure that we could parallelize it. Currently, its a serial process (as you say) - the queue collects across readers by adjusting the values in the queue to sort correctly against the current reader. That approach doesn't appear easily parallelized. patrick o'leary wrote: Think I may ha

Re: ReadOnlyMultiSegmentReader bitset id vs doc id

2009-04-28 Thread patrick o'leary
Think I may have found it, it was multiple runs of the filter, one for each segment reader, I was generating a new map to hold distances each time. So only the distances from the last segment reader were stored. Currently it looks like those segmented searches are done serially, well in solr they

Re: ReadOnlyMultiSegmentReader bitset id vs doc id

2009-04-28 Thread Mark Miller
You might check out this Solr exchange : http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/b2ccc68ca834129/lucene_2_9_migration_issues_multireader_vs_indexreader_document_ids There are a few suggestions throughout. -- - Mark http://www.lucidimagination.com Uwe Schindler wrote: What is the

RE: ReadOnlyMultiSegmentReader bitset id vs doc id

2009-04-28 Thread Uwe Schindler
What is the problem exactly? Maybe you use the new Collector API, where the search is done for each segment, so caching does not work correctly? - Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de _ From: patrick o'leary [mailto:pj..