From: Jake Mannix [mailto:jake.man...@gmail.com]
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
>
>
> > the second approach is slower, when deleted docs
> > are involved and 0 is inside the range (need to consult TermDocs).
> >
>
> This is a good point (and should be mentioned in your
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote:
> the second approach is slower, when deleted docs
> are involved and 0 is inside the range (need to consult TermDocs).
>
This is a good point (and should be mentioned in your blog, John) - for
while
custom FieldCache-like implementations (
ey
> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:55 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: share some numbers for range queries
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:02 AM, John Wang wrote:
> > I did some performance analysis for different ways of doing numeric
> > ra
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:02 AM, John Wang wrote:
> I did some performance analysis for different ways of doing numeric
> ranging with lucene. Thought I'd share:
FYI, the second approach is already implemented in both Lucene and Solr.
http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_9_1/api/core/org/apache/luce
Hi:
I did some performance analysis for different ways of doing numeric
ranging with lucene. Thought I'd share:
http://invertedindex.blogspot.com/2009/11/numeric-range-queries-comparison.html
-John
