Mike:
I did just post with what I saw, feel free to read and comment on it.
I am simply trying to work with Michael on this and trying to
understand the code.
As I have expressed previously, I have seen a difference between 1.5
and 1.6 that is significant. Since Mike has posted some numbers on jdk 1.6,
I was hoping to eliminate all variables relating to the index and
environment and see if he sees the same thing.
I guess I should be more clear in the email.
-John
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> I am patient :) And I'm not speaking for Mike, I'm speaking for me. I'm
> wondering what your seeing. Asking Mike to rerun the tests without
> giving any further info (you didn't even say that your seeing something
> different) is unfair to the rest of us ;)
>
> Giving 0 info along with your request just makes 0 sense to me and I
> said as much.
>
> John Wang wrote:
> > Mark:
> >
> > Please be patient with me. I am seeing a difference and was
> > wondering if Mike would see the same thing. I thought Michael would be
> > willing to because he expressed interest in understanding what the
> > performance discrepancies are.
> >
> > Again, it is only a request. It is perfectly fine if Michael
> > refuses to. But it would be great if Michael speaks for himself.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > -John
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> > Why? What might he find? Whats with the cryptic request?
> >
> > Why would Java 1.5 perform better than 1.6? It erases 20 and 40%
> > gains?
> >
> > I know point 2 certainly doesn't. Cards on the table?
> >
> > John Wang wrote:
> > > Hey Michael:
> > >
> > > Would you mind rerunning the test you have with jdk1.5?
> > >
> > > Also, if you would, change the comparator method to avoid
> > > brachning for int and string comparators, e.g.
> > >
> > >
> > > return index.order[i.doc] - index.order[j.doc];
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > -John
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Michael McCandless
> > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > <mailto:[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:17 AM, John Wang
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have been playing with the patch, and I think I
> > have some
> > > information
> > > > that you might like.
> > > > Let me spend sometime and gather some more numbers and
> > > update in jira.
> > >
> > > Excellent!
> > >
> > > > say bottom has ords 23, 45, 76, each corresponding to a
> > > string. When
> > > > moving to the next segment, you need to make bottom to
> > have ords
> > > that can be
> > > > comparable to other docs in this new segment, so you would
> > need
> > > to find the
> > > > new ords for the values in 23,45 and 76, don't you? To
> > find it,
> > > assuming the
> > > > values are s1,s2,s3, you would do a bin. search on the new
> val
> > > array, and
> > > > find index for s1,s2,s3.
> > >
> > > It's that inversion (from ord->Comparable in first seg, and
> > > Comparable->ord in second seg) that I'm trying to avoid (w/
> > this new
> > > proposal).
> > >
> > > > Which is 3 bin searches per convert, I am not sure
> > > > how you can short circuit it. Are you suggesting we call
> > > Comparable on
> > > > compareBottom until some doc beats it?
> > >
> > > I'm saying on seg transition you indeed get the Comparable
> > for current
> > > bottom, but, don't attempt to invert it. Instead, as seg 2
> > finds a
> > > hit, you get that hit's Comparables and compare to bottom.
> > If it
> > > beats bottom, it goes into the queue. If it does not, you
> > use the ord
> > > (in seg 2's ord space) to "learn" a bottom in the ord space
> > of seg 2.
> > >
> > > > That would hurt performance I lot though, no?
> > >
> > > Yeah I think likely it would, since we're talking about a
> binary
> > > search on transition VS having to do possibly many
> > > upgrade-to-Comparable and compare-Comparabls to slowly learn
> the
> > > equivalent ord in the new segment. I was proposing it for
> > cases where
> > > inversion is very difficult. But realistically, since you
> > must keep
> > > around the ful ord -> Comparable for every segment anyway
> > (in order to
> > > merge in the end), inversion shouldn't ever actually be
> > "difficult" --
> > > it'd just be a binary search on presumably in-RAM storage.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>
> > > <mailto:[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>
> > > <mailto:[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Mark
> >
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
