[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4574?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13505582#comment-13505582
]
David Smiley commented on LUCENE-4574:
--------------------------------------
I don't have any conviction on what the right answer should be; this area of
Lucene is not one I've explored before. If scorer.score() is cheap in general
(is it?), then I can see your reservations. Perhaps the solution is to only
cache specific Scorers that are or could be expensive. So for me this means
adding the cache at FunctionQuery$AllScorer. This cache is as lightweight as a
cache can possibly be, remember; no hashtable lookup, just a docid comparison
with branch.
bq. Also: can we speed up this particular query? why is its score so costly?
It's a FunctionQuery tied to a ValueSource doing spatial distance. Applying
this very simple cache on my custom ValueSource cut my response time in nearly
a half!
> FunctionQuery ValueSource value computed twice per document
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-4574
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4574
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core/search
> Affects Versions: 4.0, 4.1
> Reporter: David Smiley
> Attachments: LUCENE-4574.patch, Test_for_LUCENE-4574.patch
>
>
> I was working on a custom ValueSource and did some basic profiling and
> debugging to see if it was being used optimally. To my surprise, the value
> was being fetched twice per document in a row. This computation isn't
> exactly cheap to calculate so this is a big problem. I was able to
> work-around this problem trivially on my end by caching the last value with
> corresponding docid in my FunctionValues implementation.
> Here is an excerpt of the code path to the first execution:
> {noformat}
> at
> org.apache.lucene.queries.function.docvalues.DoubleDocValues.floatVal(DoubleDocValues.java:48)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.queries.function.FunctionQuery$AllScorer.score(FunctionQuery.java:153)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.search.TopFieldCollector$OneComparatorScoringMaxScoreCollector.collect(TopFieldCollector.java:291)
> at org.apache.lucene.search.Scorer.score(Scorer.java:62)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.search(IndexSearcher.java:588)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.search(IndexSearcher.java:280)
> {noformat}
> And here is the 2nd call:
> {noformat}
> at
> org.apache.lucene.queries.function.docvalues.DoubleDocValues.floatVal(DoubleDocValues.java:48)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.queries.function.FunctionQuery$AllScorer.score(FunctionQuery.java:153)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.search.ScoreCachingWrappingScorer.score(ScoreCachingWrappingScorer.java:56)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.search.FieldComparator$RelevanceComparator.copy(FieldComparator.java:951)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.search.TopFieldCollector$OneComparatorScoringMaxScoreCollector.collect(TopFieldCollector.java:312)
> at org.apache.lucene.search.Scorer.score(Scorer.java:62)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.search(IndexSearcher.java:588)
> at
> org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.search(IndexSearcher.java:280)
> {noformat}
> The 2nd call appears to use some score caching mechanism, which is all well
> and good, but that same mechanism wasn't used in the first call so there's no
> cached value to retrieve.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
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
