Doug Cutting wrote:
Daniel Noll wrote:
Doug Cutting wrote:
Daniel Noll wrote:
I actually did throw a lot of terms in, and eventually chose "one"
for the tests because it was the slowest query to complete of them
all (hence I figured it was already spending some fairly long time
in I/O, and would be penalised the most.) Every other query was
around 7ms before tweaking, and the tweak increased them all to
somewhere around 10ms but that's still a lot faster than "one" was
even at its fastest.
Different terms are affected differently by this tweak, so results
for a single term don't reveal much.
Hence why I just said: "I actually did throw a lot of terms in".
I'm confused. I'm talking about the table of results you posted. You
measured only a single term in those, no? I don't think results for a
single term are representative. If it is term 127 then it will be
slower than average with an indexInterval of 128, and will be faster
than average with an indexInterval of 16k. So to get numbers that are
representative of an average term at multiple indexIntervals you need
to test with many terms. Am I missing something?
"Every other query was around 7ms before tweaking, and the tweak
increased them all to somewhere around 10ms but that's still a lot
faster than "one" was even at its fastest. "
In other words, I didn't publish the results for all the other ones,
because all the fast ones were exactly the same as "test". "one" was
the only interesting term.
Daniel
--
Daniel Noll
NUIX Pty Ltd
Level 8, 143 York Street, Sydney 2000
Phone: (02) 9283 9010
Fax: (02) 9283 9020
This message is intended only for the named recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,
distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
message or attachment is strictly prohibited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
