Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sankar@gmail.com designates
 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPsWd+PCUZhHRohuh+5VtLN0NqSmd4YjHEhU5rOWumY0xUaMCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CACdbTQicvM-2wUtVphFuxZEmt=riXGK_mAA41+sCt36UKu1-Nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPsWd+PCUZhHRohuh+5VtLN0NqSmd4YjHEhU5rOWumY0xUaMCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:03:48 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CACdbTQg+2uj9qq_rseBocOOpJ=ZoGOu2ymeu1MbPzavQ0MnqxA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Performance measurements
From: Sriram Sankar <sankar@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8342a825a604e244e40a

--90e6ba6e8342a825a604e244e40a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

No I do not need scoring.  This is a pure retrieval query - which matches
what we used to do with Unicorn in Facebook - something like:

(name:sriram AND (friend:1 OR friend:2 ...))

This automatically gives us second degree.

With Unicorn, we would always get sub-millisecond performance even for
n>500.

Should I assume that Lucene is that much worse - or is it that this use
case has not been optimized?

Sriram.


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Adrien Grand <jpountz@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Sriram Sankar <sankar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > termA AND (termB1 OR termB2 OR ... OR termBn)
>
> Maybe this comment is not appropriate for your use-case, but if you
> don't actually need scoring from the disjunction on the right of the
> query, a TermsFilter will be faster when n gets large.
>
> --
> Adrien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

--90e6ba6e8342a825a604e244e40a--