Well, skipTo does in fact throw UOE. And BS.next() does in fact work, which is interesting, but it will next() through docs out-of-order, which BS2 won't like. Does anyone know of any cases where BS.next() is in fact used?
Mike On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Paul Elschot<paul.elsc...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > As long as next(), skipTo(), doc() and score() on a Scorer work, > the search will be done. I hope the results are correct in this > case, but I'm not sure. > > Regards, > Paul Elschot > > On Wednesday 15 July 2009 19:08:00 Michael McCandless wrote: >> I don't think a toplevel BS2 is able to use BS as sub-scorers? BS2 >> needs to do doc-at-once, for all sub-scorers, but BS can't do that. I >> think? >> >> Mike >> >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Paul Elschot<paul.elsc...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> > On Wednesday 15 July 2009 17:16:23 Michael McCandless wrote: >> >> So now I'm confused. Since your query has required (+) clauses, the >> >> setAllowDocsOutOfOrder should have no effect, on either 2.4 or trunk. >> > >> > Probably the top level BQ is using BS2 because of the required clauses, >> > but the nested BQ's are using BS because the docs are allowed out of order. >> > >> > In that case BS2 will use skipTo() on BS, and the BS.skipTo() >> > implementation >> > could well be the culprit for performance. A long time ago BS.skipTo() >> > used to >> > throw an unsupported operation exception, but that does not seem to >> > be happening. >> > >> > Eks, could you try a toString() on the top level scorer for one of the >> > affected >> > queries to see whether it shows BS2 on top level and BS for the inner >> > scorers? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Paul Elschot >> > >> > >> >> >> >> BooleanQuery only uses BooleanScorer when there are no required terms, >> >> and allowDocsOutOfOrder is true. So I can't explain why you see this >> >> setting changing anything on this query... >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:04 PM, eks dev<eks...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I do not know exactly why, but >> >> > when I BooleanQuery.setAllowDocsOutOfOrder(true); I have the problem, >> >> > but with setAllowDocsOutOfOrder(false); no problems whatsoever >> >> > >> >> > not really scientific method to find such bug, but does the job and >> >> > makes me happy. >> >> > >> >> > Empirical, "deprecated methods are not to be taken as thoroughly >> >> > tested, as they have short life expectancy" >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> >> >> From: eks dev <eks...@yahoo.co.uk> >> >> >> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, 15 July, 2009 0:24:43 >> >> >> Subject: Re: speed of BooleanQueries on 2.9 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Mike, we are definitely hitting something with this one! >> >> >> >> >> >> we had report from our QA chaps that our servers got stuck (limit is >> >> >> on 180 >> >> >> Seconds Request)... We are on average 14 Requsts per second.... has >> >> >> nothing to >> >> >> do with gc() as >> >> >> we can repeat it with freshly restarted searcher. >> >> >> >> >> >> - it happens on a less than 0.1% of queries, not much of a pattern, >> >> >> repeatable >> >> >> on our index... >> >> >> it is always combination of two expanded tokens (we use >> >> >> minimumNooShouldMatch)... >> >> >> >> >> >> (+(t1 [up to 40 expansions]) +(t2 [up to 40 expansions of t2])) >> >> >> all tokens are with set boost, and minNumShouldMatch is set to two >> >> >> >> >> >> I cannot provide self-contained test, nor index (contains sensitive >> >> >> data and is >> >> >> rather big, ~5G) >> >> >> >> >> >> I can repeat this test on t1 and t2 with 40 expansions each. even if I >> >> >> take the >> >> >> most frequent tokens in collection it runs well under one second...but >> >> >> these two >> >> >> particular tokens with their "expansions" are making it run forever... >> >> >> >> >> >> and yes, if I run t1 plus expansions only, it runs super fast, the >> >> >> same for t2 >> >> >> >> >> >> java 1.4U14, tried wit 1.6U6, no changes... >> >> >> >> >> >> will report if I dig something out >> >> >> >> >> >> partial stack trace while "stuck", cpu is on max: >> >> >> >> >> >> org.apache.lucene.search.TopScoreDocCollector$OutOfOrderTopScoreDocCollector.collect(Unknown >> >> >> Source) >> >> >> org.apache.lucene.search.BooleanScorer.score(Unknown Source) >> >> >> org.apache.lucene.search.BooleanScorer.score(Unknown Source) >> >> >> org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.search(Unknown Source) >> >> >> org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.search(Unknown Source) >> >> >> org.apache.lucene.search.Searcher.search(Unknown Source) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> >> >> > From: eks dev >> >> >> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> > Sent: Monday, 13 July, 2009 13:28:45 >> >> >> > Subject: Re: speed of BooleanQueries on 2.9 >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Hi Mike, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > getMaxNumOfCandidates() in test was 200, Index is optimised and >> >> >> > read-only >> >> >> > >> >> >> > We found (due to an error in our warm-up code, funny) that only this >> >> >> > Query >> >> >> runs >> >> >> > slower on 2.9. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > A hint where to look could be that this Query cointains two, the >> >> >> > most frequent >> >> >> >> >> >> > tokens in two particular fields >> >> >> > NAME:hans and ZIPS:berlin (index has ca 80Mio very short documents, >> >> >> > 3Mio >> >> >> unique >> >> >> > terms) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > But all of this *could be just wrong measurement*, I just could not >> >> >> > spend more >> >> >> >> >> >> > time to get to the bottom of this. We moved forward as we got >> >> >> > overall better >> >> >> > average performance (sweet 10% in average) on much bigger real query >> >> >> > log from >> >> >> > our regression test. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Anyhow I just wanted to throw it out, maybe it triggers some >> >> >> > synapses :) If >> >> >> > false alarm, sorry. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> >> >> > > From: Michael McCandless >> >> >> > > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> > > Sent: Monday, 13 July, 2009 11:50:48 >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: speed of BooleanQueries on 2.9 >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > This is not expected; 2.9 has had a number of changes that ought to >> >> >> > > reduce CPU cost of searching. If this holds up we definitely need >> >> >> > > to >> >> >> > > get to the root cause. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Did your test exclude the warmup query for both 2.4.1 & 2.9? How >> >> >> > > many >> >> >> > > segments in the index? What is the actual value of >> >> >> > > getMaxNumOfCandidates()? If you simplify the query down (eg just >> >> >> > > do >> >> >> > > the NAME clause or the ZIPSS clause, alone) are those also 4X >> >> >> > > slower? >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Mike >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 12:53 PM, eks devwrote: >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Is it possible that the same BooleanQuery on 2.9 runs >> >> >> > > > significantly slower >> >> >> >> >> >> > > than on 2.4? >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > we have some strange effects where the following query runs >> >> >> > > > approx >> >> >> 4(ouch!) >> >> >> > > times slower on 2.9, test done by 1000 times executing the same >> >> >> > > Query... >> >> >> But! >> >> >> > if >> >> >> > > I run test from some real Query log with mixed Queries, I get >> >> >> > > almost the >> >> >> same >> >> >> > > results (?!), even slightly faster on 2.9 !? >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Query: >> >> >> > > > +((NAME:hans NAME:hahns^0.23232001 NAME:hams^0.27648002 >> >> >> > > > NAME:hamz^0.25392 >> >> >> > > NAME:hanas^0.18722998 NAME:hanbs^0.18722998 NAME:hanfs^0.18722998 >> >> >> > > NAME:hangs^0.18722998 NAME:hanhs^0.24030754 NAME:hanis^0.18722998 >> >> >> > > NAME:hanjs^0.18722998 NAME:hanks^0.18722998 NAME:hanms^0.18722998 >> >> >> > > NAME:hanos^0.18722998 NAME:hanrs^0.18722998 NAME:hansb^0.20172001 >> >> >> > > NAME:hansd^0.20172001 NAME:hansf^0.20172001 NAME:hansg^0.20172001 >> >> >> > > NAME:hansi^0.20172001 NAME:hansj^0.20172001 NAME:hansk^0.20172001 >> >> >> > > NAME:hansl^0.20172001 NAME:hansn^0.20172001 NAME:hanso^0.20172001 >> >> >> > > NAME:hansp^0.20172001 NAME:hanst^0.20172001 NAME:hansu^0.20172001 >> >> >> > > NAME:hansw^0.20172001 NAME:hansy^0.20172001 NAME:hansz^0.20172001 >> >> >> > > NAME:hants^0.18722998 NAME:hanus^0.18722998 NAME:hanws^0.18722998 >> >> >> > > NAME:hehns^0.20172001 NAME:hens^0.2736075 NAME:hins^0.24843 >> >> >> NAME:hons^0.24843 >> >> >> > > NAME:huhns^0.1801875 NAME:huns^0.24843)^2.0) >> >> >> > > > +(((ZIPS:berlin ZIPS:barlin^0.28227 ZIPS:berien^0.25947002 >> >> >> > > ZIPS:berling^0.23232001 ZIPS:perlin^0.26133335))^1.2) >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > The question is just to get some hints where I should look... >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Both fealds are without norms, omitTf(true) , RAMDirectory, using >> >> >> > > > TopDocs top = ixSearcher.search(q, null, >> >> >> > > > getMaxNumOfCandidates()); >> >> >> > > > and BooleanQuery.setAllowDocsOutOfOrder(true); >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > maybe we made some mistakes on measuring, but we did simple >> >> >> > > > timing here on >> >> >> >> >> >> > > search() method... strange. I would bet it is something we did, >> >> >> > > but I cannot >> >> >> >> >> >> > see >> >> >> > > where ... >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
