lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mike Klaas (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-693) ConjunctionScorer - more tuneup
Date Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:04:44 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-693?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12544630
] 

Mike Klaas commented on LUCENE-693:
-----------------------------------

Yonik: this is great!  I applied and tested the patch and everything looks good.

Running the tests on my system (FC5/java 6.0.01), I got

testConjunctionPerf: 20% faster
testNestedConjunction: 60% faster / 2.5x speed up
testConjunctionTerms: 18% faster
testNestedConjunction: 50% faster / 2x speed up

(where XX% faster = (difference in times/old time*100))

> ConjunctionScorer - more tuneup
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-693
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-693
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Search
>    Affects Versions: 2.1
>         Environment: Windows Server 2003 x64, Java 1.6, pretty large index
>            Reporter: Peter Keegan
>         Attachments: conjunction.patch, conjunction.patch, conjunction.patch, conjunction.patch,
conjunction.patch.nosort1
>
>
> (See also: #LUCENE-443)
> I did some profile testing with the new ConjuctionScorer in 2.1 and discovered a new
bottleneck in ConjunctionScorer.sortScorers. The java.utils.Arrays.sort method is cloning
the Scorers array on every sort, which is quite expensive on large indexes because of the
size of the 'norms' array within, and isn't necessary. 
> Here is one possible solution:
>   private void sortScorers() {
> // squeeze the array down for the sort
> //    if (length != scorers.length) {
> //      Scorer[] temps = new Scorer[length];
> //      System.arraycopy(scorers, 0, temps, 0, length);
> //      scorers = temps;
> //    }
>     insertionSort( scorers,length );
>     // note that this comparator is not consistent with equals!
> //    Arrays.sort(scorers, new Comparator() {         // sort the array
> //        public int compare(Object o1, Object o2) {
> //          return ((Scorer)o1).doc() - ((Scorer)o2).doc();
> //        }
> //      });
>   
>     first = 0;
>     last = length - 1;
>   }
>   private void insertionSort( Scorer[] scores, int len)
>   {
>       for (int i=0; i<len; i++) {
>           for (int j=i; j>0 && scores[j-1].doc() > scores[j].doc();j--
) {
>               swap (scores, j, j-1);
>           }
>       }
>       return;
>   }
>   private void swap(Object[] x, int a, int b) {
>     Object t = x[a];
>     x[a] = x[b];
>     x[b] = t;
>   }
>  
> The squeezing of the array is no longer needed. 
> We also initialized the Scorers array to 8 (instead of 2) to avoid having to grow the
array for common queries, although this probably has less performance impact.
> This change added about 3% to query throughput in my testing.
> Peter

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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