lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael McCandless (Updated) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (LUCENE-1536) if a filter can support random access API, we should use it
Date Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:31:45 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1536?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Michael McCandless updated LUCENE-1536:
---------------------------------------

    Attachment: LUCENE-1536.patch

New patch, fixing a few failing tests, adding a couple comments.  I
downgraded the 2 nocommits in LTC to TODOs, and removed the other one
(false is correct default for those two?).

For DocIdSet, can we nuke getRandomAccessBits?  Ie, if
supportRandomAccess() returns true, then we can cast the instance to
Bits?  Maybe we should rename supportRandomAccess to useRandomAccess?
(Ie, it may support it, but we only want to use random access when the
filter is dense enough).

I changed MTQWF's and CachingWrapperFilter's threshold to a double
percent (of the reader's maxDoc) instead, default 1.0%.

Hmm FieldCacheRangeFilter never enables random access... not sure
how/when we should compute that.

I think we are getting close!

                
> if a filter can support random access API, we should use it
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1536
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1536
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: core/search
>    Affects Versions: 2.4
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>            Assignee: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: gsoc2011, lucene-gsoc-11, mentor
>             Fix For: 4.0
>
>         Attachments: CachedFilterIndexReader.java, LUCENE-1536.patch, LUCENE-1536.patch,
LUCENE-1536.patch, LUCENE-1536.patch, LUCENE-1536.patch, LUCENE-1536.patch, LUCENE-1536.patch,
LUCENE-1536.patch, LUCENE-1536.patch, LUCENE-1536.patch, LUCENE-1536.patch
>
>
> I ran some performance tests, comparing applying a filter via
> random-access API instead of current trunk's iterator API.
> This was inspired by LUCENE-1476, where we realized deletions should
> really be implemented just like a filter, but then in testing found
> that switching deletions to iterator was a very sizable performance
> hit.
> Some notes on the test:
>   * Index is first 2M docs of Wikipedia.  Test machine is Mac OS X
>     10.5.6, quad core Intel CPU, 6 GB RAM, java 1.6.0_07-b06-153.
>   * I test across multiple queries.  1-X means an OR query, eg 1-4
>     means 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4, whereas +1-4 is an AND query, ie 1 AND 2
>     AND 3 AND 4.  "u s" means "united states" (phrase search).
>   * I test with multiple filter densities (0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 75, 90,
>     95, 98, 99, 99.99999 (filter is non-null but all bits are set),
>     100 (filter=null, control)).
>   * Method high means I use random-access filter API in
>     IndexSearcher's main loop.  Method low means I use random-access
>     filter API down in SegmentTermDocs (just like deleted docs
>     today).
>   * Baseline (QPS) is current trunk, where filter is applied as iterator up
>     "high" (ie in IndexSearcher's search loop).

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message