[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3584?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13162392#comment-13162392
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-3584:
-------------------------------------
Yonik, where is the code to your benchmark? I don't trust it.
hotspot likes to change how it compiles readvint so be sure to use lots of jvm
iterations.
I tested this change with luceneutil (lots of iterations, takes an hour to run)
and everything
was the same, with disjunction queries looking better every time I ran it.
I think everything is just fine.
||Task||QPS||trunkStdDev||trunk QPS||patchStdDev||patch Pct diff||
|IntNRQ|10.44|0.69|9.80|0.88|-19% - 9%|
|Wildcard|24.93|0.41|24.23|0.44|-6% - 0%|
|Prefix3|48.83|1.14|47.45|1.09|-7% - 1%|
|TermBGroup1M1P|43.29|1.08|42.28|1.31|-7% - 3%|
|PKLookup|187.88|4.49|186.43|5.07|-5% - 4%|
|AndHighHigh|15.10|0.25|14.99|0.54|-5% - 4%|
|SpanNear|15.96|0.43|15.87|0.43|-5% - 4%|
|TermBGroup1M|32.30|0.87|32.14|0.64|-4% - 4%|
|SloppyPhrase|14.53|0.50|14.47|0.55|-7% - 7%|
|TermGroup1M|24.07|0.54|24.01|0.48|-4% - 4%|
|Respell|87.11|3.74|86.91|4.05|-8% - 9%|
|Fuzzy1|94.79|3.18|94.58|4.05|-7% - 7%|
|Fuzzy2|48.13|1.92|48.10|2.45|-8% - 9%|
|Phrase|9.10|0.41|9.11|0.41|-8% - 9%|
|Term|135.52|4.74|137.26|2.91|-4% - 7%|
|AndHighMed|51.64|0.92|53.20|1.90|-2% - 8%|
|OrHighHigh|10.75|0.62|11.79|0.60|-1% - 22%|
|OrHighMed|12.20|0.75|13.40|0.71|-1% - 23%|
> bulk postings should be codec private
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-3584
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3584
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Robert Muir
> Assignee: Robert Muir
> Fix For: 4.0
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-3584.patch
>
>
> In LUCENE-2723, a lot of work was done to speed up Lucene's bulk postings
> read API.
> There were some upsides:
> * you could specify things like 'i dont care about frequency data up front'.
> This made things like multitermquery->filter and other consumers that don't
> care about freqs faster. But this is unrelated to 'bulkness' and we have a
> separate patch now for this on LUCENE-2929.
> * the buffersize for standardcodec was increased to 128, increasing
> performance
> for TermQueries, but this was unrelated too.
> But there were serious downsides/nocommits:
> * the API was hairy because it tried to be 'one-size-fits-all'. This made
> consumer code crazy.
> * the API could not really be specialized to your codec: e.g. could never
> take advantage that e.g. docs and freqs are aligned.
> * the API forced codecs to implement delta encoding for things like documents
> and positions.
> But this is totally up to the codec how it wants to encode! Some codecs
> might not use delta encoding.
> * using such an API for positions was only theoretical, it would have been
> super complicated and I doubt ever
> performant or maintainable.
> * there was a regression with advance(), probably because the api forced you
> to do both a linear scan thru
> the remaining buffer, then refill...
> I think a cleaner approach is to let codecs do whatever they want to
> implement the DISI
> contract. This lets codecs have the freedom to implement whatever
> compression/buffering they want
> for the best performance, and keeps consumers simple. If a codec uses delta
> encoding, or if it wants
> to defer this to the last possible minute or do it at decode time, thats its
> own business. Maybe a codec
> doesn't want to do any buffering at all.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
