-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move BooleanScorer to work on top of Scorers rather than BulkScorers. #13931
Open
jpountz
wants to merge
5
commits into
apache:main
Choose a base branch
from
jpountz:booleanscorer_scorer
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+118
−197
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
I was looking at some queries where Lucene performs significantly worse than Tantivy at https://tantivy-search.github.io/bench/, and found out that we get quite some overhead from implementing `BooleanScorer` on top of `BulkScorer` (effectively implemented by `DefaultBulkScorer` since it only runs term queries as boolean clauses) rather than `Scorer` directly. The `CountOrHighHigh` and `CountOrHighMed` tasks are a bit noisy on my machine, so I did 3 runs on wikibigall, and all of them had speedups for these two tasks, often with a very low p-value. In theory, this change could make things slower when the inner query has a specialized bulk scorer, such as `MatchAllDocsQuery` or a conjunction. It does feel right to optimize for term queries though.
|
I could confirm the speedup on a different machine:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I was looking at some queries where Lucene performs significantly worse than Tantivy at https://tantivy-search.github.io/bench/, and found out that we get quite some overhead from implementing
BooleanScorer
on top ofBulkScorer
(effectively implemented byDefaultBulkScorer
since it only runs term queries as boolean clauses) rather thanScorer
directly.The
CountOrHighHigh
andCountOrHighMed
tasks are a bit noisy on my machine, so I did 3 runs on wikibigall, and all of them had speedups for these two tasks, often with a very low p-value.In theory, this change could make things slower when the inner query has a specialized bulk scorer, such as
MatchAllDocsQuery
or a conjunction. It does feel right to optimize for term queries though.