lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler (Updated) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (LUCENE-1536) if a filter can support random access API, we should use it
Date Wed, 05 Oct 2011 18:34:31 GMT

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

Uwe Schindler updated LUCENE-1536:
----------------------------------

    Attachment: LUCENE-1536.patch

I modified my patch for FieldCacheRangeFilter to enforce that it does not respect deletes
(it throws UOE on the setter).

I checked some combinations, setContainsOnlyLiveDocs() cannot go in like that!!!

CachingWrapperFilter should have its own handling of this and return the correct setting,
but not modify an already created bitset/whatever DocIdSet. My above patch does no longer
respect deleted docs in FieldCacheRangeFilter and returns false from the beginning. But if
you cache this filter, it suddenly tries to set the boolean to true -> test fail

Also all Filters that internally use deleted docs, should return true from the beginning.
We can maybe add the setter to FixedBitSet, so filter impls can easily set this bit, but it
should not be a setter in DocIdSet!
                
> 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, 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