On Thursday 28 February 2008 01:52:27 Erick Erickson wrote:
> And don't iterate through the Hits object for more than 100 or so hits.
> Like Mark said. Really. Really don't ...
Is there a good trick for avoiding this?
Say you have a situation like this...
- User searches
- User sees first N h
...
Thank you again!
fangz
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Inconsistent-Search-Speed-tp15698325p15719770.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [
score ) {
TermFreqVector vector = null;
vector = searcher.getIndexReader().getTermFreqVector(doc, "field");
...
Thank you again!
fangz
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Inconsistent-Search-Speed-tp15698325p15719770.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing
To reinforce Grant's comment, lazy loading improved one situation for me
on the order of 10X. I wrote it up and it's somewhere in the Wiki. Your
results
will vary, and unless you have a LOT of stored fields I wouldn't necessarily
expect a similar speedup, but it's sure worth looking at.
And don't
You could also look at the FieldSelector when getting the Document.
Such that you only load the one field you need
-Grant
On Feb 26, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
The Lucene prime directive: dont iterate through all of Hits! Its
horribly inefficient. You must use a hitcollector. Ev
The Lucene prime directive: dont iterate through all of Hits! Its
horribly inefficient. You must use a hitcollector. Even still, getting
your field values will be slow no matter what if you get for every hit.
You don't want to do this for every hit in a search. But don't loop
through Hits.
fa
the hits are relatively small, I do not see the
same behavior.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Inconsistent-Search-Speed-tp15698325p15704908.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com
sing such a
> big speed difference?
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> fangz
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Inconsistent-Search-Speed-tp15698325p15698325.html
> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
seconds. This
does
not change with or without calling indexsearcher.close(). As I know,
Lucene
does not cache results (no filter is involved). So what is causing
such a
big speed difference?
Thank you in advance!
fangz
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Incon
onds. This does
not change with or without calling indexsearcher.close(). As I know, Lucene
does not cache results (no filter is involved). So what is causing such a
big speed difference?
Thank you in advance!
fangz
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Inconsistent-Se
10 matches
Mail list logo
