lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Wang <john.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: lucene 2.9 sorting algorithm
Date Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:29:29 GMT
Numbers Mike requested for Int types:

only the time/cputime are posted, others are all the same since the
algorithm is the same.

Lucene 2.9:
numhits: 10
time: 14619495
cpu: 146126

numhits: 20
time: 14550568
cpu: 163242

numhits: 100
time: 16467647
cpu: 178379


my test:
numHits: 10
time: 14101094
cpu: 144715

numHits: 20
time: 14804821
cpu: 151305

numHits: 100
time: 15372157
cpu time: 158842

Conclusions:
The are very similar, the differences are all within error bounds,
especially with lower PQ sizes, which second sort alg again slightly faster.

Hope this helps.

-John


On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Yonik Seeley <yonik@lucidimagination.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Michael McCandless
> <lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> > Though it'd be odd if the switch to searching by segment
> > really was most of the gains here.
>
> I had assumed that much of the improvement was due to ditching
> MultiTermEnum/MultiTermDocs.
> Note that LUCENE-1483 was before LUCENE-1596... but that only helps
> with queries that use a TermEnum (range, prefix, etc).
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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