?
> Thanks!
>
>
>> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:49:00 -0400
>> Subject: Re: Optimization of memory usage in PriorityQueue
>> From: luc...@mikemccandless.com
>> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> OK I've added a NOTE to the javadocs for this...
>>
&
ate: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:49:00 -0400
> Subject: Re: Optimization of memory usage in PriorityQueue
> From: luc...@mikemccandless.com
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
>
> OK I've added a NOTE to the javadocs for this...
>
> Mike
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:57 PM,
OK I've added a NOTE to the javadocs for this...
Mike
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Claudio . wrote:
>>> I think the common use case of TopScoreDocCollector is to request 10
>>> results, then ask for 20 and so on. You ask for N results because you want
>>> to display them, or manipulate them i
>> I think the common use case of TopScoreDocCollector is to request
10 results, then ask for 20 and so on. You ask for N results because
you want to display them, or manipulate them in some way.
>>
However, if we do add this to the base PQ, it means an extra check for
every put() call. We've tri
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> You mean that if we add it to Collector all developers will need to impl it?
> You're right, therefore I'm not sure it's such a good idea. Also, a unlike
> PQ, a Collector seems less reusable, as it doesn't declare to hold any data
> structures
You mean that if we add it to Collector all developers will need to impl it?
You're right, therefore I'm not sure it's such a good idea. Also, a unlike
PQ, a Collector seems less reusable, as it doesn't declare to hold any data
structures that can/should be reused.
What about PQ?
Shai
On Mon, Ju
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Michael
McCandless wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
>> Do you think it's worth it? If so, should we also add reset() to Collector?
>
> Seems like it'd be good to have the option? But it's certainly a very
> expert thing since it's presum
Agreed. I'll see if I can patch it sometime soon.
Shai
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> >> Though, are Lucene's core collectors reusable? If you did really want
> >> say 100K results ou
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
>> Though, are Lucene's core collectors reusable? If you did really want
>> say 100K results out of each search (very unusual), it'd be nice to
>> not have to throw away the Collector/PQ each time.
>
> PQ has clear(), but it does not really allow
>
> Though, are Lucene's core collectors reusable? If you did really want
> say 100K results out of each search (very unusual), it'd be nice to
> not have to throw away the Collector/PQ each time.
>
PQ has clear(), but it does not really allow you to reuse it, it just
removes all the elements. So
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> Or ... we can do nothing, and say that one can write his own Collector, and
> use Sun's PQ (or any other), if one has a case like "I need 10K results, but
> I don't know how many are there, and specifically I want to optimize for the
> case of 1
I think the common use case of TopScoreDocCollector is to request 10
results, then ask for 20 and so on. You ask for N results because you want
to display them, or manipulate them in some way.
However, if we do add this to the base PQ, it means an extra check for every
put() call. We've tried very
Hi,
The PriorityQueue used in TopDocCollector does not optimize the memory usage.
If I do this search:
TopDocs topDocs = searcher.search(query, null, 1);
And only 1 document is returned. The PriorityQueue will create an Object[] of
size 1 + 1, but only one position of the
13 matches
Mail list logo
