lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Karl Wettin (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-550) InstanciatedIndex - faster but memory consuming index
Date Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:05:21 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550?page=comments#action_12422359 ] 
            
Karl Wettin commented on LUCENE-550:
------------------------------------

To make this index work flawless (I hope), remove the if-statement around the following row
in InstatiatedIndexWriter (row 477 or so):

termDocumentInformation.termPositions.add(fieldSettings.position);

This will fix the termposition bug noted in an earlier comment.

I'll keep posting bugfixes as comments here, but when I work on it it's really in my branch
of lucene 2.0.0, available here: http://www.ginandtonique.org/trac/snigel/wiki/Lucene2-karl

If someone feels that this layer is an interesting thing to add to Lucene, let me know what
is required for commit and I'll make those changes. It still seems to be about 40 times (mean
value on a "nomal" index with "normal" amount of terms. have seen 20x-200x) than RAMDirectory
when comparing search and to retrieve documents time combined.

> InstanciatedIndex - faster but memory consuming index
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-550
>                 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-550
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Store
>    Affects Versions: 1.9
>            Reporter: Karl Wettin
>         Attachments: class_diagram.png, class_diagram.png, instanciated_20060527.tar,
InstanciatedIndexTermEnum.java, lucene.1.9-karl1.jpg
>
>
> After fixing the bugs, it's now 4.5 -> 5 times the speed. This is true for both at
index and query time. Sorry if I got your hopes up too much. There are still things to be
done though. Might not have time to do anything with this until next month, so here is the
code if anyone wants a peek.
> Not good enough for Jira yet, but if someone wants to fool around with it, here it is.
The implementation passes a TermEnum -> TermDocs -> Fields -> TermVector comparation
against the same data in a Directory.
> When it comes to features, offsets don't exists and positions are stored ugly and has
bugs.
> You might notice that norms are float[] and not byte[]. That is me who refactored it
to see if it would do any good. Bit shifting don't take many ticks, so I might just revert
that.
> I belive the code is quite self explaining.
> InstanciatedIndex ii = ..
> ii.new InstanciatedIndexReader();
> ii.addDocument(s).. replace IndexWriter for now.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message