[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1145) DisjunctionSumScorer small tweak

["Paul Elschot (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1145?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12561752#action_12561752 ] 

Paul Elschot commented on LUCENE-1145:
--------------------------------------

When I wrote it, using the queueSize variable did make a minor difference in performance.
But with the result you have, I think it's better use the size() call only.


> DisjunctionSumScorer small tweak
> --------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-1145
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1145
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Search
>         Environment: all
>            Reporter: Eks Dev
>            Priority: Trivial
>         Attachments: DisjunctionSumScorerOptimization.patch, DSSQueueSizeOptimization.patch, TestScorerPerformance.java
>
>
> Move ScorerDocQueue initialization from next() and skipTo() methods to the Constructor. Makes DisjunctionSumScorer a bit faster (less than 1% on my tests). 
> Downside (if this is one, I cannot judge) would be throwing IOException from DisjunctionSumScorer constructors as we touch HardDisk there. I see no problem as this IOException does not propagate too far (the only modification I made is in BooleanScorer2)
> if (scorerDocQueue == null) {
>       initScorerDocQueue();
> }
>  
> Attached test is just quick & dirty rip of  TestScorerPerf from standard Lucene test package. Not included as patch as I do not like it.
> All test pass, patch made on trunk revision 613923

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org