lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Karl Wettin (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-550) InstanciatedIndex - faster but memory consuming index
Date Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:29:04 GMT
    [ ] 
Karl Wettin commented on LUCENE-550:

wolfgang hoschek [21/Nov/06 12:50 PM]
> Ok. That means a basic test passes. For some more exhaustive tests, run all the queries

All Lucene unit tests have been adapted to work with my alternate index. Everything but proximity
queries pass. Have not looked in to why as I don't use them (yet). And I have written an in
depth index comparator to make sure that an InstantiatedIndex equals a Directory implementation.
Hence I have already verified that the index works as expected. 

Todays postings from me is more to show that InstantiatedIndex is /almost/ as fast as MemoryIndex
and could thus be an interesting replacement, as as it handles more than one document it might
even be preferable in some cases.

I will however run your suggested tests tomorrow and report back. 
And post the latest patches, including my adaptation of your unit test, in case you want to
explore it by your self.

> InstanciatedIndex - faster but memory consuming index
> -----------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LUCENE-550
>                 URL:
>             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,, lucene.1.9-karl1.jpg, lucene2-karl_20060722.tar.gz, lucene2-karl_20060723.tar.gz
> 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
> 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
> I belive the code is quite self explaining.
> InstanciatedIndex ii = ..
> 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:
For more information on JIRA, see:


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message