[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12487432
]
Otis Gospodnetic commented on LUCENE-584:
-----------------------------------------
Doron, thanks for jumping on this!
1. I thought I'd see better performance with the Matcher because it skips
scoring. While Paul's patch does make changes to the Filtering code, I'm more
focused on HitCollector vs. MatchCollector performance here. Am I missing
something here? If scoring is skipped, we should see at least some speed
improvement, and your results show that.
2. You said you *did* see MatchCollector was faster than HitCollector. Hmmm,
weird, not in my 4 runs:
Matcher:
[java] SearchSameRdr_50000 - - - - - - - - 4 - - 50000 - - 1,064.7 - - 187.84
- 11,060,036 - 14,806,016
HitCollector:
[java] SearchSameRdr_50000 - - - - - - - - 4 - - 50000 - - 1,070.3 - - 186.86 -
10,500,146 - 13,821,952
I'll try it again on a different computer. My previous runs were on a Mac with
OSX.
3. My bench-diff.txt did include Match tasks:
$ grep Match bench-diff.txt | grep class
public class SearchMatchTask extends MatchTask {
public abstract class MatchTask extends ReadTask {
... but I didn't svn add them, so I produced the "diff" by simply cat-ing the
new tasks to bench-diff.txt . So if you used my bench-diff.txt as a patch, it
wouldn't have worked. Not a big deal, just clarifying.
> Decouple Filter from BitSet
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-584
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-584
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.0.1
> Reporter: Peter Schäfer
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: bench-diff.txt, bench-diff.txt, BitsMatcher.java,
> Filter-20060628.patch, HitCollector-20060628.patch,
> IndexSearcher-20060628.patch, MatchCollector.java, Matcher.java,
> Matcher20070226.patch, Scorer-20060628.patch, Searchable-20060628.patch,
> Searcher-20060628.patch, Some Matchers.zip, SortedVIntList.java,
> TestSortedVIntList.java
>
>
> {code}
> package org.apache.lucene.search;
> public abstract class Filter implements java.io.Serializable
> {
> public abstract AbstractBitSet bits(IndexReader reader) throws IOException;
> }
> public interface AbstractBitSet
> {
> public boolean get(int index);
> }
> {code}
> It would be useful if the method =Filter.bits()= returned an abstract
> interface, instead of =java.util.BitSet=.
> Use case: there is a very large index, and, depending on the user's
> privileges, only a small portion of the index is actually visible.
> Sparsely populated =java.util.BitSet=s are not efficient and waste lots of
> memory. It would be desirable to have an alternative BitSet implementation
> with smaller memory footprint.
> Though it _is_ possibly to derive classes from =java.util.BitSet=, it was
> obviously not designed for that purpose.
> That's why I propose to use an interface instead. The default implementation
> could still delegate to =java.util.BitSet=.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
