I wanted to say the same, like Yonik... One addition, the FieldCache only supports one value/doc and the second approach is slower, when deleted docs are involved and 0 is inside the range (need to consult TermDocs).
By the way, the numbers are similar to mine from the FCRF issue and the explaination for 0-inside-range: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1461 ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -----Original Message----- > From: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik > Seeley > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:55 AM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: share some numbers for range queries > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:02 AM, John Wang <john.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I did some performance analysis for different ways of doing numeric > > ranging with lucene. Thought I'd share: > > FYI, the second approach is already implemented in both Lucene and Solr. > http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_9_1/api/core/org/apache/lucene/search/Fiel > dCacheRangeFilter.html > > -Yonik > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
