lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Lucene Search Performance Analysis Workshop
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:48:25 GMT
Agreed, Solr uses random access bitsets everywhere so I'm thinking
this could be an improvement or at least a great option to enable and
try out. I'll update LUCENE-1536 so we can benchmark.

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Michael
McCandless<lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Grant Ingersoll<gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>> I am wondering... are new SOLR filtering features faster than standard
>>> Lucene queries like
>>> {query} AND {filter}???
>>
>> The new filtering features in Solr are just doing what Lucene started doing
>> in 2.4 and that is using skipping when possible.  It used to be the case in
>> both Lucene and Solr that the filter was only every applied after scoring
>> but before insertion into the Priority Queue.  That is now fixed.
>
> I think performance of filtering can still be further improved, within
> Lucene... it's still very much a work in progress.
>
> EG if a filter is random access (eg RAM resident as a bit set), which
> I think for Solr is frequently the case (?), it ought to be applied
> just like we now apply deleted documents (LUCENE-1536 is opened for
> this).  This can result in sizable performance gains, especially for
> more complex queries and no-so-dense filters.
>
> Mike
>

Mime
View raw message