[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1821?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12746839#action_12746839
]
Tim Smith commented on LUCENE-1821:
-----------------------------------
bq. Have you done any benching here? I think we actually found that even most
sorting cases were faster than in 2.4.1.
I haven't done any benchmarking.
I'm not arguing that 2.9 string sorting is slower than 2.4 string sorting, it
may well be faster for every case.
per segment searching and other improvements potentially added more gains in
performance than the new string sorting added losses in performance.
But, i can say rather confidently, that a large index with a bunch of segments
will result in string sorting being slower when using a per segment string sort
cache instead of a full index sort cache (think worst case using \*:\* query)
bq. loading a field cache off a multi-segment index was dog slow
this is a trade off.
slower cache loading in order to get faster sorting
i plan to provide the ability to do both, and allow specific use cases to
decide what is best for them
> Weight.scorer() not passed doc offset for "sub reader"
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1821
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1821
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Search
> Affects Versions: 2.9
> Reporter: Tim Smith
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-1821.patch
>
>
> Now that searching is done on a per segment basis, there is no way for a
> Scorer to know the "actual" doc id for the document's it matches (only the
> relative doc offset into the segment)
> If using caches in your scorer that are based on the "entire" index (all
> segments), there is now no way to index into them properly from inside a
> Scorer because the scorer is not passed the needed offset to calculate the
> "real" docid
> suggest having Weight.scorer() method also take a integer for the doc offset
> Abstract Weight class should have a constructor that takes this offset as
> well as a method to get the offset
> All Weights that have "sub" weights must pass this offset down to created
> "sub" weights
> Details on workaround:
> In order to work around this, you must do the following:
> * Subclass IndexSearcher
> * Add "int getIndexReaderBase(IndexReader)" method to your subclass
> * during Weight creation, the Weight must hold onto a reference to the passed
> in Searcher (casted to your sub class)
> * during Scorer creation, the Scorer must be passed the result of
> YourSearcher.getIndexReaderBase(reader)
> * Scorer can now rebase any collected docids using this offset
> Example implementation of getIndexReaderBase():
> {code}
> // NOTE: more efficient implementation can be done if you cache the result if
> gatherSubReaders in your constructor
> public int getIndexReaderBase(IndexReader reader) {
> if (reader == getReader()) {
> return 0;
> } else {
> List readers = new ArrayList();
> gatherSubReaders(readers);
> Iterator iter = readers.iterator();
> int maxDoc = 0;
> while (iter.hasNext()) {
> IndexReader r = (IndexReader)iter.next();
> if (r == reader) {
> return maxDoc;
> }
> maxDoc += r.maxDoc();
> }
> }
> return -1; // reader not in searcher
> }
> {code}
> Notes:
> * This workaround makes it so you cannot serialize your custom Weight
> implementation
--
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
