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

Reply via email to