[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1575?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12695537#action_12695537
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1575:
--------------------------------------------
I ran a "first do no harm" perf test, comparing trunk with this patch:
||query||sort||hits||qps||qpsnew||pctg||
|147|score| 6953|3631.1|3641.8| 0.3%|
|147|title| 6953|2916.7|2255.6|-22.7%|
|147|doc| 6953|3251.2|2676.8|-17.7%|
|text|score| 157101| 208.1| 202.1| -2.9%|
|text|title| 157101| 96.7| 84.8|-12.3%|
|text|doc| 157101| 174.0| 115.2|-33.8%|
|1|score| 565452| 58.0| 56.4| -2.8%|
|1|title| 565452| 44.5| 34.1|-23.4%|
|1|doc| 565452| 49.2| 32.8|-33.3%|
|1 OR 2|score| 784928| 14.1| 13.7| -2.8%|
|1 OR 2|title| 784928| 12.5| 11.5| -8.0%|
|1 OR 2|doc| 784928| 13.0| 11.9| -8.5%|
|1 AND 2|score| 333153| 15.5| 15.5| 0.0%|
|1 AND 2|title| 333153| 14.8| 13.7| -7.4%|
|1 AND 2|doc| 333153| 15.2| 14.2| -6.6%|
Looks like:
* Sort by relevance got maybe a tad slower (~3%)
* Sort by field is now quite a bit slower (23-33% on term query '1')
This was on a full wikipedia index, with 14 segments, Sun java
1.6.0_07 on OS X Mac Pro quad core, on Intel X25M 160 GB
SSD.
I think we need to iterate some to try to get some performance back.
> Refactoring Lucene collectors (HitCollector and extensions)
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1575
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1575
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Shai Erera
> Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 2.9
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1575.1.patch, LUCENE-1575.2.patch,
> LUCENE-1575.3.patch, LUCENE-1575.4.patch, LUCENE-1575.5.patch,
> LUCENE-1575.6.patch, LUCENE-1575.patch, LUCENE-1575.patch
>
>
> This issue is a result of a recent discussion we've had on the mailing list.
> You can read the thread
> [here|http://www.nabble.com/Is-TopDocCollector%27s-collect()-implementation-correct--td22557419.html].
> We have agreed to do the following refactoring:
> * Rename MultiReaderHitCollector to Collector, with the purpose that it will
> be the base class for all Collector implementations.
> * Deprecate HitCollector in favor of the new Collector.
> * Introduce new methods in IndexSearcher that accept Collector, and deprecate
> those that accept HitCollector.
> ** Create a final class HitCollectorWrapper, and use it in the deprecated
> methods in IndexSearcher, wrapping the given HitCollector.
> ** HitCollectorWrapper will be marked deprecated, so we can remove it in 3.0,
> when we remove HitCollector.
> ** It will remove any instanceof checks that currently exist in IndexSearcher
> code.
> * Create a new (abstract) TopDocsCollector, which will:
> ** Leave collect and setNextReader unimplemented.
> ** Introduce protected members PriorityQueue and totalHits.
> ** Introduce a single protected constructor which accepts a PriorityQueue.
> ** Implement topDocs() and getTotalHits() using the PQ and totalHits members.
> These can be used as-are by extending classes, as well as be overridden.
> ** Introduce a new topDocs(start, howMany) method which will be used a
> convenience method when implementing a search application which allows paging
> through search results. It will also attempt to improve the memory
> allocation, by allocating a ScoreDoc[] of the requested size only.
> * Change TopScoreDocCollector to extend TopDocsCollector, use the topDocs()
> and getTotalHits() implementations as they are from TopDocsCollector. The
> class will also be made final.
> * Change TopFieldCollector to extend TopDocsCollector, and make the class
> final. Also implement topDocs(start, howMany).
> * Change TopFieldDocCollector (deprecated) to extend TopDocsCollector,
> instead of TopScoreDocCollector. Implement topDocs(start, howMany)
> * Review other places where HitCollector is used, such as in Scorer,
> deprecate those places and use Collector instead.
> Additionally, the following proposal was made w.r.t. decoupling score from
> collect():
> * Change collect to accecpt only a doc Id (unbased).
> * Introduce a setScorer(Scorer) method.
> * If during collect the implementation needs the score, it can call
> scorer.score().
> If we do this, then we need to review all places in the code where
> collect(doc, score) is called, and assert whether Scorer can be passed. Also
> this raises few questions:
> * What if during collect() Scorer is null? (i.e., not set) - is it even
> possible?
> * I noticed that many (if not all) of the collect() implementations discard
> the document if its score is not greater than 0. Doesn't it mean that score
> is needed in collect() always?
> Open issues:
> * The name for Collector
> * TopDocsCollector was mentioned on the thread as TopResultsCollector, but
> that was when we thought to call Colletor ResultsColletor. Since we decided
> (so far) on Collector, I think TopDocsCollector makes sense, because of its
> TopDocs output.
> * Decoupling score from collect().
> I will post a patch a bit later, as this is expected to be a very large
> patch. I will split it into 2: (1) code patch (2) test cases (moving to use
> Collector instead of HitCollector, as well as testing the new topDocs(start,
> howMany) method.
> There might be even a 3rd patch which handles the setScorer thing in
> Collector (maybe even a different issue?)
--
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: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
