Op Thursday 17 April 2008 06:37:18 schreef Michael Stoppelman:
> Actually, I screwed up the timing info. I wasn't including the time
> for the QueryWrapperFilter#bits(IndexReader) call. Sadly,
> it actually takes longer than the original query that had both terms
> included. Bummer. I had really co
Actually, I screwed up the timing info. I wasn't including the time for the
QueryWrapperFilter#bits(IndexReader) call. Sadly,
it actually takes longer than the original query that had both terms
included. Bummer. I had really convinced myself till the
thought came to me at lunch :).
-M
On Wed, A
Michael Stoppelman skrev:
Hi all,
I've been doing some performance testing and found that using
QueryWrapperFilter for a location field
restriction I have to do allows my search results to approach 5-10ms. This
was surprising.
Before the performance was between 50ms-100ms.
The queries from befor
Hi all,
I've been doing some performance testing and found that using
QueryWrapperFilter for a location field
restriction I have to do allows my search results to approach 5-10ms. This
was surprising.
Before the performance was between 50ms-100ms.
The queries from before the optimization look like
