Instead of profiling, provide some more info about the following: - what are the problematic (slow) queries -- are they generated from the code, are they parsed from text? What are they? Certain query types are slow(er) than other query types.
- what is the index built from? Natural language (text)? Something else? If you describe the above folks may tell you right away why your queries are slow -- people on this list continue to amaze me with the insight they have even without looking at the code ;) Dawid On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Paul Taylor <paul_t...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > On 29/04/2011 15:17, Dawid Weiss wrote: > > > > > lucene/Search that is taking the time, I also had another attempt using >> luke >> > but find it incredibly buggy and of little use >> > > Can you expand on this too? What kind of "incredible bugs" did you see? > Without feedback there is little progress, so bug reports count. > > Dawid > > Sorry, I'll withdraw that. I was getting all kinds of stacktraces and > exceptions when I tried to do searches but the problem was my fault. Because > I wanted to use my own analyzer I had a shells script that added it to the > classpath when I ran luke, however I had put it before the ant jar and my > jar built with maven also included lucene 3.0.3 and because luke 1.0.1 is > packaged with 3.0.0 it was confusing it, but I didnt realize this until I > notice done exception complained a lucene method was missing. > > But having got it working I cannot see anything to help me work out why the > queries are taking too long, is it useful for this or just for refining your > queries ? > > Paul >
