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 22:33:28 GMT
BTW, we are have a little sandbox for these experiments. And all my testcode
are at. They are not very polished.

https://lucene-book.googlecode.com/svn/trunk

-John

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 3:29 PM, John Wang <john.wang@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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