Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 22:13:14 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Martijn van Groningen (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12631745.1360600593484.280670.1360707194224@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12631745.1360600593484@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12631745.1360600593484@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (LUCENE-4771) Query-time join collectors could
 maybe be more efficient
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4771?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13577095#comment-13577095 ] 

Martijn van Groningen commented on LUCENE-4771:
-----------------------------------------------

+1 Very nice improvement.

bq. Another thing i dont like is that then the Query returned by JoinUtil then depends on the old reader.
I thought about it and the only solution I can come up with is to just keep the reference of the reader around. Just put the atomic reader somewhere in the BytesRefIterable impl during the first phase.
                
> Query-time join collectors could maybe be more efficient
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-4771
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4771
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: modules/join
>            Reporter: Robert Muir
>         Attachments: LUCENE-4771_prototype.patch, LUCENE-4771_prototype_without_bug.patch
>
>
> I was looking @ these collectors on LUCENE-4765 and I noticed:
> * SingleValued collector (SV) pulls FieldCache.getTerms and adds the bytes to a bytesrefhash per-collect.
> * MultiValued  collector (MV) pulls FieldCache.getDocTermsOrds, but doesnt use the ords, just looks up each value and adds the bytes per-collect.
> I think instead its worth investigating if SV should use getTermsIndex, and both collectors just collect-up their per-segment ords in something like a BitSet[maxOrd]. 
> When asked for the terms at the end in getCollectorTerms(), they could merge these into one BytesRefHash.
> Of course, if you are going to turn around and execute the query against the same searcher anyway (is this the typical case?), this could even be more efficient: No need to hash or instantiate all the terms in memory, we could do postpone the lookups to SeekingTermSetTermsEnum.accept()/nextSeekTerm() i think... somehow :)

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
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