On Friday 09 January 2009 05:29:15 John Wang wrote:
> Makes sense.
> I didn't think 32 was the empirically determined magic number ;)
That number does have a history, but I don't know the details.
> Are you planning to do a patch for this?
No, but could you open an issue and mention the perform
Makes sense.
I didn't think 32 was the empirically determined magic number ;)
Are you planning to do a patch for this?
-John
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Paul Elschot wrote:
> John,
>
> Continuing, see below.
>
> On Wednesday 07 January 2009 14:24:15 Paul Elschot wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07
John,
Continuing, see below.
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 14:24:15 Paul Elschot wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 January 2009 07:25:17 John Wang wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> >The default buffer size (for docid,score etc) is 32 in TermScorer.
> >
> > We have a large index with some terms to have very d
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 07:25:17 John Wang wrote:
> Hi:
>
>The default buffer size (for docid,score etc) is 32 in TermScorer.
>
> We have a large index with some terms to have very dense doc sets. By
> increasing the buffer size we see very dramatic performance improvements.
>
>
Hi:
The default buffer size (for docid,score etc) is 32 in TermScorer.
We have a large index with some terms to have very dense doc sets. By
increasing the buffer size we see very dramatic performance improvements.
With our index (may not be typical), here are some numbers with buffer
