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: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: 
 <trinity-c1f1eca2-796c-415a-9b1a-fd31c4ba9edc-1378718498311@3capp-webde-bs22>
From: "Mirko Sertic" <mirko.sertic@web.de>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Aw: Re:  Re: Strange performance of Lucene 4.4.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 11:21:38 +0200 (CEST)
Importance: normal
Sensitivity: Normal
In-Reply-To: <1378713328.9247.366.camel@te-prime>
References: 
 <trinity-8eeebeb1-d82b-4cd7-8c0f-358d2bc3e7aa-1378565957448@3capp-webde-bs39>
 , <522C4F90.9010202@robertoragusa.it>
 <trinity-56b19ce9-3617-4663-b98a-d9f3ca12bde7-1378646139257@3capp-webde-bs33>,
 <1378713328.9247.366.camel@te-prime>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi

Basically i am running a load test. For every run i executed about 1 milli=
on queries on the same index with the same query string, so it should be wa=
rmed up very well ;-) It performs about 8x faster with an empty Sort() inst=
ance than the first option. Still do not get it. An empty Sort instance sho=
uld sort by score, according to the default constructor.
=C2=A0
Providing no sort instance finally invokes

protected TopDocs search(Weight weight, ScoreDoc after, int nDocs) throws =
IOException

while providing a Sort instance finally invokes

protected TopFieldDocs search(Weight weight, FieldDoc after, int nDocs,
                                Sort sort, boolean fillFields,
                                boolean doDocScores, boolean doMaxScore) t=
hrows IOException
=C2=A0
with doDocScores and doMaxScore set to false.

Seems like providing an empty Sort() instances should sort by score accord=
ing to its default constructor. But no scoring is done by the IndexSearcher=
, so there is nothing so sort at all. So from this point of view the scorin=
g computation does cause the slower queries.

Regards
Mirko

Gesendet:=C2=A0Montag, 09. September 2013 um 09:55 Uhr
Von:=C2=A0"Toke Eskildsen" <te@statsbiblioteket.dk>
An:=C2=A0"java-user@lucene.apache.org" <java-user@lucene.apache.org>
Betreff:=C2=A0Re: Aw: Re: Strange performance of Lucene 4.4.0
On Sun, 2013-09-08 at 15:15 +0200, Mirko Sertic wrote:
> I have to check, but my usecase does not require sorting or even
> scoring at all. I still do not get what the difference is...

Please describe how you perform your measurements. How do you ensure
that the index is warmed equally for the two cases?

- Toke


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
=C2=A0

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