lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: lucene 2.9 sorting algorithm
Date Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:44:49 GMT
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:51 AM, Mark Miller <> wrote:
> I didn't really follow that thread either - but we didn't move to the new
> Comp Api because of it's perfomance vs the old.

We did (LUCENE-1483), but those perf tests mixed in a number of other
improvements (eg, searching by segment avoids the 2nd pass of[], int[]), whereas John's tests more
specifically test the perf difference between single-PQ vs
multi-PQ-then-merge (much simpler comparator API).

So we are re-scrutinizing that difference... and if the perf gains are
minimal or non-existent I think we should still consider going back to
the simpler API.

I'm working now to set up a full benchmark across real (wikipedia) /
synthetic source, different queries, different sorts, balanced vs
unbalanced segment sizes, etc.


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

View raw message