I've done a bit more snooping around; it seems that in FieldSortedHitQueue.getCachedComparator(line 153), calls to lookup a stored comparator in the cache always return null. This occurs even for the built-in sort types (I tested it on integers and my code for longs). The comparators don't even appear to be being stored in the HashMap to begin with.
Any ideas? Greg --- Aviran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since I had to implement sorting in lucene 1.2 I had > to write my own sorting > using something similar to a lucene's contribution > called SortField. > Yesterday I did some tests, trying to use lucene 1.4 > Sort objects and I > realized that my old implementation works 40% faster > then Lucene's > implementation. My guess is that you are right and > there is a problem with > the cache although I couldn't find what that is yet. > > Aviran > > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Gershman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Sort: 1.4-rc3 vs. 1.4-final > > > When rc3 came out, I modified the classes used for > Sorting to, in addition to Integer, Float and > String-based sort keys, use Long values. All I did > was add extra statements in 2 classes (SortField and > FieldSortedHitQueue) that made a special case for > longs, and created a LongSortedHitQueue identical to > the IntegerSortedHitQueue, only using longs. > > This worked as expected; Long values converted to > strings and stored in Field.Keyword type fields > would > be sorted according to Long order. The initial > query > would take a while, to build the sorted array, but > subsequent queries would take little to no time at > all. > > I went back to look at 1.4 final, and noticed the > Sort implementation has > changed quite a bit. I tried the same type of > modifications to the existing > source files, but was unable to achieve similiar > results. > Each subsequent query seems to take a significant > amount of time, as if the Sorted array is being > rebuilt each time. Also, I tried sorting on an > Integer fields and got similar results, which leads > me > to believe there might be a caching problem > somewhere. > > Has anyone else seen this in 1.4-final? Also, I > would > like it if Long sorted fields could become a part of > the API; it makes sorting by date a breeze. > > Thanks! > > Greg Gershman > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign! http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
