Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 10373 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2009 16:55:27 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Sep 2009 16:55:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 50851 invoked by uid 500); 16 Sep 2009 16:55:25 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 50771 invoked by uid 500); 16 Sep 2009 16:55:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 50758 invoked by uid 99); 16 Sep 2009 16:55:25 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:55:25 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [85.25.71.29] (HELO mail.troja.net) (85.25.71.29) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:55:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.troja.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D55FD36006 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:54:23 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.troja.net Received: from mail.troja.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (megaira.troja.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ng+BEc53GIpm for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:54:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from VEGA (port-83-236-62-3.dynamic.qsc.de [83.236.62.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.troja.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64B99D36004 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:54:14 +0200 (CEST) From: "Uwe Schindler" To: References: <4AAF96E6.7000909@net-m.de> <4AAF9700.9010509@net-m.de> <4AAF98D1.5010207@net-m.de> <4AAF9B03.1040708@gmail.com> <4AAF9F17.2030307@net-m.de> <4AAFA0EA.2090300@gmail.com> <4AAFA800.5040600@net-m.de> <4AAFAA41.1070103@gmail.com> <4AAFAC95.4050307@gmail.com> <4AAFB183.4070006@net-m.de> <4AAFB2EB.4020403@gmail.com> <4AAFB62E.10403@gmail.com> <4AB0FEDB.50504@net-m.de> <4AB110E3.6040004@gmail.com> <4AB112D6.9010003@net-m.de> Subject: RE: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1? Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:54:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4FA107D4A2474911BC14488747D434E2@VEGA> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Aco260NuoVxAEc9yTMiiygMq6s8LFAAAiYUgAAAf3lA= In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > > http://ankeschwarzer.de/tmp/lucene_29_newapi_mmap_singlereq.png > > > > Have to verify that the last one is not by accident more than one > request. > > Will > > do the run again and then post the required info. > > The last figure shows, that IndexSearcher.searchWithFilter was called > twice > in contrast to the first figure, where IndexSearcher.search was called > only > once. I forgot, searchWithFilter it is called per segment in 2.9. If it was only one search, you must have two segments and therefore no optimized index for this to be correct? Uwe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org