lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael McCandless <>
Subject Re: speed of BooleanQueries on 2.9
Date Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:50:48 GMT
This is not expected; 2.9 has had a number of changes that ought to
reduce CPU cost of searching.  If this holds up we definitely need to
get to the root cause.

Did your test exclude the warmup query for both 2.4.1 & 2.9?  How many
segments in the index?  What is the actual value of
getMaxNumOfCandidates()?  If you simplify the query down (eg just do
the NAME clause or the ZIPSS clause, alone) are those also 4X slower?


On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:53 PM, eks dev<> wrote:
> Is it possible that the same BooleanQuery on 2.9 runs significantly slower than on 2.4?
> we have some strange effects where the following query runs approx 4(ouch!) times slower
on 2.9, test done by 1000 times executing the same Query... But! if I run test from some real
Query log with mixed Queries, I get almost the same results (?!), even slightly faster on
2.9 !?
> Query:
> +((NAME:hans NAME:hahns^0.23232001 NAME:hams^0.27648002 NAME:hamz^0.25392 NAME:hanas^0.18722998
NAME:hanbs^0.18722998 NAME:hanfs^0.18722998 NAME:hangs^0.18722998 NAME:hanhs^0.24030754 NAME:hanis^0.18722998
NAME:hanjs^0.18722998 NAME:hanks^0.18722998 NAME:hanms^0.18722998 NAME:hanos^0.18722998 NAME:hanrs^0.18722998
NAME:hansb^0.20172001 NAME:hansd^0.20172001 NAME:hansf^0.20172001 NAME:hansg^0.20172001 NAME:hansi^0.20172001
NAME:hansj^0.20172001 NAME:hansk^0.20172001 NAME:hansl^0.20172001 NAME:hansn^0.20172001 NAME:hanso^0.20172001
NAME:hansp^0.20172001 NAME:hanst^0.20172001 NAME:hansu^0.20172001 NAME:hansw^0.20172001 NAME:hansy^0.20172001
NAME:hansz^0.20172001 NAME:hants^0.18722998 NAME:hanus^0.18722998 NAME:hanws^0.18722998 NAME:hehns^0.20172001
NAME:hens^0.2736075 NAME:hins^0.24843 NAME:hons^0.24843 NAME:huhns^0.1801875 NAME:huns^0.24843)^2.0)
> +(((ZIPS:berlin ZIPS:barlin^0.28227 ZIPS:berien^0.25947002 ZIPS:berling^0.23232001 ZIPS:perlin^0.26133335))^1.2)
> The question is just to get some hints where I should look...
> Both fealds are without norms, omitTf(true) , RAMDirectory, using
> TopDocs top =, null, getMaxNumOfCandidates());
> and BooleanQuery.setAllowDocsOutOfOrder(true);
> maybe we made some mistakes on measuring, but we did simple timing here on search() method...
strange. I would bet it is something we did, but I cannot see where ...
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message