lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1997) Explore performance of multi-PQ vs single-PQ sorting API
Date Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:32:30 GMT
Your obviously too stuck on single examples. We have to consider  
everyone in lucene land.

I'm against 2 Apis. A custom search is advanced - it's not worth the  
baggage of maintaining two APIs or be limited by the APIs and back  
compat when moving forward.

If the advantage of the second API is just going to be it's simpler,  
I'm not for it currently.

- Mark (mobile)

On Nov 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, "Jake Mannix (JIRA)" <>  

>    [

>  ]
> Jake Mannix commented on LUCENE-1997:
> -------------------------------------
> bq. Since each approach has distinct advantages, why not offer both  
> ("simple" and "expert") comparator extensions APIs?
> +1 from me on this one, as long as the simpler one is around.  I'll  
> bet we'll find that we regret keeping the "expert" one by 3.2 or so  
> though, but I'll take any compromise which gets the simpler API in  
> there.
> bq. Don't forget that this is multiplied by however many queries are  
> currently in flight.
> Sure, so if you're running with 100 queries per second on a single  
> shard (pretty fast!), with 100 segments, and you want to do sorting  
> by value on the top 1000 values (how far down the long tail of  
> extreme cases are we at now?  Do librarians hit their search servers  
> with 100 QPS and have indices poorly built with hundreds of segments  
> and can't take downtime to *ever* optimize?), we're now talking  
> about 40MB.
> *Forty megabytes*.  On a beefy machine which is supposed to be  
> handling 100QPS across an index big enough to need 100 segments.   
> How much heap would such a machine already be allocating?  4GB?  6?   
> More?
> We're talking about less than 1% of the heap is being used by the  
> multiPQ approach in comparison to singlePQ.
>> Explore performance of multi-PQ vs single-PQ sorting API
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>                Key: LUCENE-1997
>>                URL:
>>            Project: Lucene - Java
>>         Issue Type: Improvement
>>         Components: Search
>>   Affects Versions: 2.9
>>           Reporter: Michael McCandless
>>           Assignee: Michael McCandless
>>        Attachments: LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch,  
>> LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch,  
>> LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch,  
>> LUCENE-1997.patch
>> Spinoff from recent "lucene 2.9 sorting algorithm" thread on java- 
>> dev,
>> where a simpler (non-segment-based) comparator API is proposed that
>> gathers results into multiple PQs (one per segment) and then merges
>> them in the end.
>> I started from John's multi-PQ code and worked it into
>> contrib/benchmark so that we could run perf tests.  Then I generified
>> the Python script I use for running search benchmarks (in
>> contrib/benchmark/
>> The script first creates indexes with 1M docs (based on
>> SortableSingleDocSource, and based on wikipedia, if available).  Then
>> it runs various combinations:
>>  * Index with 20 balanced segments vs index with the "normal" log
>>    segment size
>>  * Queries with different numbers of hits (only for wikipedia index)
>>  * Different top N
>>  * Different sorts (by title, for wikipedia, and by random string,
>>    random int, and country for the random index)
>> For each test, 7 search rounds are run and the best QPS is kept.  The
>> script runs singlePQ then multiPQ, and records the resulting best QPS
>> for each and produces table (in Jira format) as output.
> -- 
> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> -
> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message