To reinforce Grant's comment, lazy loading improved one situation for me
on the order of 10X. I wrote it up and it's somewhere in the Wiki. Your
results
will vary, and unless you have a LOT of stored fields I wouldn't necessarily
expect a similar speedup, but it's sure worth looking at.

And don't iterate through the Hits object for more than 100 or so hits. Like
Mark said. Really. Really don't <G>...

Best
Erick

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> You could also look at the FieldSelector when getting the Document.
> Such that you only load the one field you need
>
> -Grant
>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> > The Lucene prime directive: dont iterate through all of Hits! Its
> > horribly inefficient. You must use a hitcollector. Even still,
> > getting your field values will be slow no matter what if you get for
> > every hit. You don't want to do this for every hit in a search. But
> > don't loop through Hits.
> >
> > fangz wrote:
> >> Thank you for the info.  It makes sense.
> >> My search will return more than 10000 documents and I have to loop
> >> through
> >> all documents to build a list with unique field values. It seems
> >> that the
> >> looping of the hits takes the longest time in the initial run but
> >> afterwards
> >> it becomes much faster. If the hits are relatively small, I do not
> >> see the
> >> same behavior.
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucenebootcamp.com
> Next Training: April 7, 2008 at ApacheCon Europe in Amsterdam
>
> Lucene Helpful Hints:
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/BasicsOfPerformance
> http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Reply via email to