Hi Michael:
Thanks for looking into this.
Approach 2 has a dependency on how fast the delete set performs a check
on a given id, approach one doesn't. After replacing my delete set with a
simple bitset, approach 2 gets a 25-30% improvement.
I understand if the delete set is small, approach 1 would be faster,
while approach two has a more constant/deterministic performance. I would
also save from indexing the UID term into the index if going with approach
two.
I don't however see how column-stride fields would help here, isn't it a
generalization of what I am doing?
BTW, can you shine some light on why would IndexWriter move docids around
when it is opened and no docs has been added to it?
Thanks
-John
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 6:37 PM, John Wang <john.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > a code snippet is worth 1000 words :)
>
> Here here!
>
> OK, now I understand the difference.
>
> With approach 1, for each of N UIDs you use a TermDocs to find the
> postings for that UID, and retrieve the one docID corresponding to
> that UID. You retrieve UID -> docID.
>
> With approach 2, you iterate through all docs in the index, using a
> single full walk through the single TermPositions instance for your
> special UID_TERM, and retrieve the UID stored in the 4-byte payload.
> You retrieve docID -> UID.
>
> Approach 1 is expected to be more costly, per UID - Lucene must
> consult the terms dict (binary search on the terms index, followed by
> scan on disk within the 128 term block) to find the posting, then seek
> to the posting and read that.
>
> Approach 2 is an efficient "bulk" walk, but it loads all docID -> UIDs
> into RAM (ie, you cannot be selective about which UIDs you load).
>
> So if the number of UIDs you need to process is small, approach 1
> should win; but after that number crosses X (apparently X < 10000 for
> you), approach 2's "bulk walk" will win.
>
> Approach 1 will get faster with the "pulsing" approach for inlining
> low-frequency postings directly into the terms dict (discussed on
> java-dev and implemented as a codec in the experimental flexible
> indexing patch on LUCENE-1458), because we save the second seek.
>
> Approach 2 will get much faster with column-stride fields
> (LUCENE-1231).
>
> Though we may want to take this even further and allow inversion for
> special fields ("primary key int" field, ie your UID) to be stored as
> a column-stride field. Probably this could simply be another codec in
> LUCENE-1458. Then, delete-by-Term would be exceptionally fast for
> such fields.
>
> Mike
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>
