if that helps.
>
>
> Le mar. 18 juil. 2023, 23:59, Alexander Lukyanchikov <
> alexanderlukyanchi...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> Hi everyone,
>> We performed testing of the concurrent rewrite for knn vector queries in
>> Lucene 9.7 and the results look great, we s
Hi everyone,
We performed testing of the concurrent rewrite for knn vector queries in
Lucene 9.7 and the results look great, we see up to x9 improvement on large
datasets.
Our current implementation for intra-query concurrency relies on a single
IndexSearcher per index which is always configured
Hello everyone,
I am running a simple boolean `should` over 3 Term queries on the same
field, ~500M docs dataset. The query takes around 20 seconds.
Explain shows that each individual Term query is relatively fast (up to 250
ms), but the Boolean query match phase takes 17 seconds, scoring 1.5
ed). This
> works by having huger blocks of virtual memory (currently limited to 1
> Gigabyte per mapping) => https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/912
>
> Uwe
>
>
> Thank you,
> Alex
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:42 AM Robert Muir wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug
to avoid MMAPing files with the random access
pattern on the most recent Lucene and JVM versions?
Thank you,
Alex
On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 2:42 AM Robert Muir wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 1:47 PM Alexander Lukyanchikov
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Currently we are trying to av
, Aug 9, 2022 at 6:34 AM Alexander Lukyanchikov <
alexanderlukyanchi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> We have a use-case which shows about 10 times higher latency for boolean
> queries after migrating to Lucene 9.2. Each query contains 3 filter clauses
> and up to a th
Hello everyone,
We have a use-case which shows about 10 times higher latency for boolean
queries after migrating to Lucene 9.2. Each query contains 3 filter clauses
and up to a thousand single-term should clauses. They usually return less
than 5 documents with a single stored field and used to
ch/stored_fields_benchmarks.html
> .
> > - If you're seeing a 30% performance degradation with recent changes to
> stored fields, there are good chances that you could improve the
> performance of this workload significantly with a custom codec that is
> lighter on compression.
Hello everyone,
We are in the process of upgrading from Lucene 8.5.0 and on the latest
version our query performance tests show significant latency degradation
for one of the important use cases. In this test, each query retrieves a
relatively large dataset of 40k documents with a small stored
