You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to java-user@lucene.apache.org by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org> on 2009/09/02 02:28:56 UTC
Re: Performance diffs between filter.bits() and searcher.docFreq()
: new TermsFilter( termsList:[ new Term( 'id', '111' ) ] ).bits( indexReader
: ).cardinality()
...
: indexReader.docFreq( new Term( 'id', '111' ) )
...
: Which one is faster? Can I replace the 2nd one with the 1st and still get
: the same performance?
"the second", and "no"
-Hoss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
Re: Performance diffs between filter.bits() and searcher.docFreq()
Posted by Konstantyn Smirnov <in...@yahoo.com>.
hossman wrote:
>
> "the second", and "no"
>
Thanks for that.
Concerning the *theoretical* performance difference, for the mid-size index,
what will it be in % roughly?
Are there any way to make indexReader.docFreqs() reflect the changes faster,
i.e. without the need to optimize()?
-----
Konstantyn Smirnov, CTO
http://www.poiradar.ru www.poiradar.ru
http://www.poiradar.com.ua www.poiradar.com.ua
http://www.poiradar.com www.poiradar.com
http://www.poiradar.de www.poiradar.de
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-diffs-between-filter.bits%28%29-and-searcher.docFreq%28%29-tp25186776p25253535.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org