lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Uwe Schindler" <...@thetaphi.de>
Subject RE: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1?
Date Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:09:57 GMT
I found one thing in your debug output:

You are using a lot of CachingWrapperFilters around QueryWrapperFilter.
According to http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1427,
QueryWrapperFilter does not copy the scorer's doc ids into a OpenBitSet, it
instead returns the scorer itself as DocIdSet (which is perfectly legal ant
very good, if no caching is involved). The CachingWrapperFilter just caches
this DocIdSet, but the result is that the scorer's next/advance methods are
executed even if the cache had cached the filter before.

Maybe we need some change to CachingWrapperFilter that caches the DocIdSets
as before, but optionally would wrap it into an OpenBitSet, if it is not an
instance of OBS.

Uwe

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Becker [mailto:thomas.becker@net-m.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:56 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1?
> 
> So here's a debug message showing the query:
> 
> 2009-09-16 18:53:59,642 [DEBUG] [http-8440-2] [] [2144122] []
> service.impl.LuceneBaseService: items search('viewable:(FINDALL 0 1 2 )',
> BooleanFilter( +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+issalesallo
> wed:true))
> +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(licenseGroupKeys:lablxrox))
> +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+(viewable:1 viewable:2)))
> +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+contentReposit
> oryIds:146))
> +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+contentGroupIds:14554))
> -
> CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(digitalReleaseDate:{lablxrox200909
> 16 TO
> lablxrox99999999} digitalDeleteDate:[lablxro
> x19000101 TO lablxrox20090916]))
> -CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+excludedContractIds:all))
> -CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+excludedContractIds:2144122))),
> <custom:"position": null>, 0,
>  16)
> 
> By the way, will it make sense to move this into a jira issue? It'll get
> quite
> tough to find the right information already since this thread is growing
> quite fast.
> 
> Mark Miller wrote:
> > bq. I'll do some profiling now again and let you know the results.
> >
> > Great - it will be interesting to see the results. My guess, based on
> > the 2.9 new api profiling, is that your queries may not be agreeing with
> > some of the changes somehow. Along with the profiling, can you fill us
> > in on the query types you are using as well? (eg qualities)
> >
> > And grab invocations if its possible.
> >
> 
> --
> Thomas Becker
> Senior JEE Developer
> 
> net mobile AG
> Zollhof 17
> 40221 Düsseldorf
> GERMANY
> 
> Phone:    +49 211 97020-195
> Fax:      +49 211 97020-949
> Mobile:   +49 173 5146567 (private)
> E-Mail:   mailto:thomas.becker@net-m.de
> Internet: http://www.net-m.de
> 
> Registergericht:  Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 48022
> Vorstand:         Theodor Niehues (Vorsitzender), Frank Hartmann,
>                  Kai Markus Kulas, Dieter Plassmann
> Vorsitzender des
> Aufsichtsrates:   Dr. Michael Briem
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org



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


Mime
View raw message