Hi, If you dont cache filters, queries will be faster, as the ConjunctionScorer in Lucene has optimizations, which are currently not used for Filters. Filters are fine, if you cache them (e.g. if you always have the same access restrictions for a specific user that are applied to all his queries). In that case the Filter is only executed once and cached for all further requests and then intersected with the query result set.
If you only want to e.g. randomly "filter" e.g. by a variable numeric range like a bounding box in a geographic search, use queries, queries are in most cases faster (e.g. Range Queries and similar stuff - called MultiTermQueries - are internally also implemented by the same BitSet algorithm like the Filter - in fact they are only Filters wrapped by a Scorer-impl). But the Scorer that ANDs the query and your "filter" query together (ConjunctionScorer) is generally faster than the code that applies the filter after searching. This may some improvement possible, but in general filters are something in Lucene that is not really needed anymore, so there were already some approaches to make Filters and Queries the same, and instead then be able to also cache non-scoring queries. This would make lots of code easier. Filters can bring a huge speed improvement with Lucene 4.0, if they are plugged ontop of the IndexReader to filter the documents *before* scoring, but that's not yet implemented (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3212) - I am working on it. We may also make Filters random access (it's easy as they are bitsets), which could improve also the after-query filtering. But I would then also make Queries partially random access, if they could support it (like queries that are only based on FieldCache). Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Denis Bazhenov [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 3:21 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Does {Filter}ing is faster than {Query}ing in Lucene? > > While reading "Lucene in Action 2nd edition" I came across the description of > Filter classes which are could be used for result filtering in Lucene. Lucene > has a lot of filters repeating Query classes. For example, NumericRangeQuery > and NumericRangeFilter. > > The book says that NRF does exactly the same as NRQ but without document > scoring. Does this means that if I do not need scoring or sort documents by > document field value I should preferFiltering over Querying from > performance point of view? > > --- > Denis Bazhenov <[email protected]> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
