one thing I wonder is if you could just publish your benchmark code? simon
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Michael McCandless <luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Zhang, Lisheng > <lisheng.zh...@broadvision.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Mike, >> >> I retested and results are the same: >> >> 1/ I did not use sort (so FieldCache should not enter picture?) > > No grouping or joining either (they will use FieldCache, if it's not > against a doc values field). > > What sort of queries are you running? > >> 2/ I created indexed data from scratch separately for 361 and 43 >> based on same text (text files), and I ran test from command >> line separately against each index folder, so seems a pretty >> fair test. > > OK. > >> 3/ Each test I created searcher from scrath (to measure creation >> time). I did not include JVM start time in each case. The >> tests are in same box. > > OK. > >> From indexed data it seems that 43 generated a lot more data in >> folder, below I listed (ls -ltr) result > > This is very odd: the 4.3 index is quite a bit larger than the 3.x > index. Are you certain the two indexed the same content in the same > way? Which analyzer are you using? Maybe run CheckIndex against each > index and post the output? > >> (always pass in LUCENE_43 >> version, so lucen 42 codec should be used, why lucene41?). > > This is fine: the Lucene42 codec uses Lucene41PostingsFormat. > > Mike McCandless > > http://blog.mikemccandless.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
