Sigh. Yeah, I agree that a simple big-O won't work for Lucene. But
nonetheless, we really should have some sort of performance
characterization. When people ask me about how to characterize Lucene/Solr
performance I always tell them that it is highly non-linear, with lots of
optimizations and optio
What if we have some assumptions. For example, we assume that we have only
one segment and the entire segment is in memory ?
thanks,
Zong
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 4:38 AM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> I don't think the big-O notation is appropriate to measure the cost of
> Lucene queries.
>
> Le mer. 1
I don't think the big-O notation is appropriate to measure the cost of
Lucene queries.
Le mer. 11 nov. 2015 à 20:31, search engine a
écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking how to use big O annotation to show complexity for
> different types of queries, like term query, prefix query, phrase query,
Note that you now have a much better alternative to FieldCache with doc
values, which are computed at index-time, stored in the index and won't
blow up memory.
Le ven. 20 nov. 2015 à 08:55, Michael Wilkowski a
écrit :
> Yes, according to Lucene in Action book, you cannot use field cache in such
