jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From majohnst <m...@lattaoutdoors.com>
Subject Re: Date Property Performance in 1.6
Date Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:50:04 GMT

Jackrabbit 1.6 uses Lucene 2.4.1. I think 1.5 uses Lucene 2.4.0. In
Jackrabbit 1.6, some things were refactored to work better with 2.4.1.
Overall, most queries do perform better. But I guess this type of query did
not see the intended performance gain.

The SortedLuceneQueryHits is new in 1.6, so I cannot tell if the performance
drop is caused by this new Jackrabbit code or by some code changes in Lucene
2.4.1.





Ard Schrijvers-3 wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:38 PM, majohnst <matt@lattaoutdoors.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've done a lot more digging and the slowdown seems to happen in the
>> SortedLuceneQueryHits class. Specifically in the first two lines of the
>> getHits() method. Line one creates a TopFieldDocCollector and line 2
>> searches the index with searcher.search(query, collector).
> 
> has this code changed wrt the jackrabbit version for which is was
> faster? If not, then what are the lucene versions in both cases?
> 
>>
>> Since the query is trying to find a date that is >=, does this get turned
>> into a range query in lucene? Would that slow things down?
> 
> Well, range queries are indeed slow. But, they shouldn't become slower
> overnight. There are more effective ways in lucene these days, but
> that is something for coming versions.
> 
> Regards Ard
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Date-Property-Performance-in-1.6-tp25704607p25768083.html
Sent from the Jackrabbit - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message