lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com>
Subject Re: lucene 2.9 sorting algorithm
Date Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:00:09 GMT
Sheesh I go to bed and so much all of a sudden happens!!

Sorry Mark; I should've called out "PATCH IS ON 2.9 BRANCH" more
clearly ;)

There's no question in my mind that the new comparator API is more
complex than the old one, and I really don't like that.  I had to
rewrite the section of LIA that gives an example of a [simple] custom
sort and it wasn't pleasant!  Two compare methods (compare,
compareBottom)?  Two copy methods (copy, setBottom)?  Sure, you can
grok it and get through it if you have to, but it is more complex
because it's conflated with the PQ API.

Ease on consumption of our APIs is very important, so, only when
performance clearly warrants it should we adopt a more complex API.

Also, yeah, it would suck to have to switch back to the old API at
this point, but net/net I still think we should if performance is no
better with the new one.

The old API also fits cleanly with per-segment searching (John's
initial patch shows that -- it's simply another per-segment Colletor).
The two APIs (collection, comparator) are well decoupled.

So, digging in deep and running thorough perf tests makes sense; we
need to understand the performance to make the API switch decision.
And definitely we should tune both approaches as much as possible
(removing that if from the Multi PQ patch makes sense).

But... Multi PQ's performance isn't better in many cases... though,
we're clearly still iterating.  I'll run a 1.5 (32 & 64 bit) test,
with the if statement removed.

Mike

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Earwin Burrfoot <earwin@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did.
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 09:05, Jake Mannix <jake.mannix@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes - I've seen a handful of non core devs report back that they
>>> upgraded with no complaints on the difficulty. Its in the mailing list
>>> archives. The only core dev I've seen say its easy is Uwe. He's super
>>> sharp though, so I wasn't banking my comment on him ;)
>>
>> Upgrade custom sorting?  Where has anyone talked about this?
>>
>> 2.9 is great, I like the new apis, they're great in general.  It's just this
>> multi-segment sorting we're talking about here.
>>
>>   -jake
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (earwin@gmail.com)
> Home / Mobile: +7 (495) 683-567-4 / +7 (903) 5-888-423
> ICQ: 104465785
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

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