I found one thing in your debug output: You are using a lot of CachingWrapperFilters around QueryWrapperFilter. According to http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1427, QueryWrapperFilter does not copy the scorer's doc ids into a OpenBitSet, it instead returns the scorer itself as DocIdSet (which is perfectly legal ant very good, if no caching is involved). The CachingWrapperFilter just caches this DocIdSet, but the result is that the scorer's next/advance methods are executed even if the cache had cached the filter before.
Maybe we need some change to CachingWrapperFilter that caches the DocIdSets as before, but optionally would wrap it into an OpenBitSet, if it is not an instance of OBS. Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Becker [mailto:thomas.bec...@net-m.de] > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:56 PM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1? > > So here's a debug message showing the query: > > 2009-09-16 18:53:59,642 [DEBUG] [http-8440-2] [] [2144122] [] > service.impl.LuceneBaseService: items search('viewable:(FINDALL 0 1 2 )', > BooleanFilter( +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+issalesallo > wed:true)) > +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(licenseGroupKeys:lablxrox)) > +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+(viewable:1 viewable:2))) > +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+contentReposit > oryIds:146)) > +CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+contentGroupIds:14554)) > - > CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(digitalReleaseDate:{lablxrox200909 > 16 TO > lablxrox99999999} digitalDeleteDate:[lablxro > x19000101 TO lablxrox20090916])) > -CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+excludedContractIds:all)) > -CachingWrapperFilter(QueryWrapperFilter(+excludedContractIds:2144122))), > <custom:"position": null>, 0, > 16) > > By the way, will it make sense to move this into a jira issue? It'll get > quite > tough to find the right information already since this thread is growing > quite fast. > > Mark Miller wrote: > > bq. I'll do some profiling now again and let you know the results. > > > > Great - it will be interesting to see the results. My guess, based on > > the 2.9 new api profiling, is that your queries may not be agreeing with > > some of the changes somehow. Along with the profiling, can you fill us > > in on the query types you are using as well? (eg qualities) > > > > And grab invocations if its possible. > > > > -- > Thomas Becker > Senior JEE Developer > > net mobile AG > Zollhof 17 > 40221 Düsseldorf > GERMANY > > Phone: +49 211 97020-195 > Fax: +49 211 97020-949 > Mobile: +49 173 5146567 (private) > E-Mail: mailto:thomas.bec...@net-m.de > Internet: http://www.net-m.de > > Registergericht: Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, HRB 48022 > Vorstand: Theodor Niehues (Vorsitzender), Frank Hartmann, > Kai Markus Kulas, Dieter Plassmann > Vorsitzender des > Aufsichtsrates: Dr. Michael Briem > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
