Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 80571 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2009 10:50:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 Aug 2009 10:50:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 39246 invoked by uid 500); 11 Aug 2009 10:50:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 39140 invoked by uid 500); 11 Aug 2009 10:50:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 39132 invoked by uid 99); 11 Aug 2009 10:50:52 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:50:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rcmuir@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.241 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.241] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.241) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 10:50:43 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b2so1114942ana.5 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:50:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tZNEwL2yXqVHRn13OoJM0k5Ky1tlgeq0Gh2rZgAuE5A=; b=TyCqKHSGc6hgWJq6iXEkqvmLlwcfkQHGl+fstGH0Yia430dJG/Og9k/w/RpQw1Av5Q cd2m9IuTh2Tx+7jcGZKncd4ef87Yw+nncY4kd5Vp7cTV2r2pd4GoIk3MrexiS20s6duW 60iQAqjvCBc/BYebYj8jGiYJ+5p3mBxWvJYPM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=yEzSDvUrDNkNsMPkfJmiNTmHBu93jBR2blrcGCHAafVUM3I3dfVolxr8yJKxYxJxS5 AsdG5R4RxZNRbXH5HgfxPybqzvSrRIGW8S62n3Bt3gwmHicEDNYfbXN+0mQvd4Q+Bbju NbHBatb6lSeX0EeaCqrhVwUsIBq2n0TZmmFBk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.191.16 with SMTP id o16mr4983925anf.173.1249987822562; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:50:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A812BC7.7000408@gmail.com> References: <345ECC25630C46B8B55AED45F8B2C691@VEGA> <4266B483-E969-44B0-90EC-810132D5A4B2@apache.org> <786fde50908101412y4f52ffdcp71e7482c10550082@mail.gmail.com> <4A809F06.3000508@gmail.com> <4A80CE34.8030208@gmail.com> <4A812BC7.7000408@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:50:22 -0400 Message-ID: <8f0ad1f30908110350wf3385cfseb81bb59b27fc21@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: who clears attributes? From: Robert Muir To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Michael Busch wrote: > There was a performance test in Solr that apparently ran much slower > after upgrading to the new Lucene jar. This test is testing a rather > uncommon scenario: very very short documents. Actually, its more uncommon than that: its very very short documents, without implementing reusableTokenStream() this makes it basically a benchmark of ctor cost... doesn't really benchmark the token api in my opinion. we should do some better benchmarks, but in most cases things appear to be the same to me. it is only this case where you have very very short documents but don't implement reuse things, that there is any difference, and now it is minor. -- Robert Muir rcmuir@gmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org