You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-dev@lucene.apache.org by "Ryan McKinley (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2007/11/09 02:23:50 UTC
[jira] Resolved: (SOLR-272) SolrDocument performance testing
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-272?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]
Ryan McKinley resolved SOLR-272.
--------------------------------
Resolution: Fixed
> SolrDocument performance testing
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-272
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-272
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Test
> Affects Versions: 1.3
> Reporter: Ryan McKinley
> Attachments: SOLR-272-SolrDocumentPerformanceTesting.patch, SOLR-272-SolrDocumentPerformanceTesting.patch, SolrDocumentPerformanceTester.java, SolrDocumentPerformanceTester.java, SolrInputDoc.patch, SolrInputDoc.patch
>
>
> In 1.3, we added SolrInputDocument -- a temporary class to hold document information. There is concern that this may be less then ideal performance-wise.
> To settle some concerns (mine included) I want to compare a few SolrDocument implementations to make sure we are not doing something crazy.
> I implemented a LuceneInputDocument subclass of SolrInputDocument that stores its values directly in Lucene Document (rather then a Map<String,Collection>).
> This is a quick test comparing:
> 1. Building documents with SolrInputDocument
> 2. Building documents with LuceneInputDocument (same interface writing directly to Document)
> 3. using DocumentBuilder (solr 1.2, solr 1.1)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.