lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Digy" <digyd...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [jira] Updated: (LUCENENET-190) 2.4.0 Performance in TermInfosReader term caching (New implementation of SimpleLRUCache)
Date Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:12:42 GMT
SortedDictionary does not have a getter with index (like Data[Index]). In a SortedList, Data[0]
is always the LRU item. 


I got much more better results with RedBlackCS.RedBlack ( http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/redblackcs.aspx
) but it is huge and there may be licensing problems.


DIGY.


-----Original Message-----
From: xzxz@mail.ru [mailto:xzxz@mail.ru] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:51 PM
To: lucene-net-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Updated: (LUCENENET-190) 2.4.0 Performance in TermInfosReader term caching
(New implementation of SimpleLRUCache)

SimpleLRUCache_LUCENENET_190 uses SortedList<long, object> collection.

Performance of SortedList (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms132339.aspx): 
1) Add method is an O(n) operation for unsorted data. It is an O(log n) operation if the new
element is added at the end of the list. 
If insertion causes a resize, the operation is O(n).
2) Remove method method is an O(n) operation
3) RemoveAt method is an O(n) operation 
4) Keys property is an O(1) operation

Why not to use SortedDictionary<>? It has better performance for Remove and Add:

1) Add method is an O(log n) operation

2) Remove method is an O(log n) operation

3) Keys property is an O(1) operation


-- 
Iliev Andrei


Digy (JIRA) :
>      [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-190?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
>
> Digy updated LUCENENET-190:
> ---------------------------
>
>     Attachment: SimpleLRUCache.rar
>
> A slightly faster implementation + a test case for SimpleLRUCache.
>
> DIGY
>
>   
>> 2.4.0 Performance in TermInfosReader term caching (New implementation of SimpleLRUCache)
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>                 Key: LUCENENET-190
>>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENENET-190
>>             Project: Lucene.Net
>>          Issue Type: Improvement
>>         Environment: v2.4.0
>>            Reporter: Digy
>>            Priority: Minor
>>         Attachments: cache_Gen2.PNG, SimpleLRUCache.rar, TermInfosReader.rar
>>
>>
>> Below is the mail from Michael Garski about the Performance in TermInfosReader term
caching. It would be good to have a faster LRUCache implementation in Lucene.Net
>> DIGY
>> {quote}
>> Doug did an amazing job of porting 2.4.0, doing it mostly on his own!  
>> Hooray Doug!
>> We are using the committed version of 2.4.0 in production and I wanted to share a
performance issue we discovered and what we've done to work around it.  From the Java Lucene
change log:  "LUCENE-1195: Improve term lookup performance by adding a LRU cache to the TermInfosReader.
In performance experiments the speedup was about 25% on average on mid-size indexes with ~500,000
documents for queries with 3 terms and about 7% on larger indexes with ~4.3M documents."
>> The Java implementation uses a LinkedHashMap within the class org.apache.lucene.util.cache.SimpleLRUCache,
which is very efficient at maintaining the cache.  As there is no equivalent collection in
.Net The current 2.4.0 port uses a combination of a LinkedList to maintain LRU state and a
HashTable to provide lookups.  While this implementation works, maintaining the LRU state
via the LinkedList creates a fair amount of overhead and can result in a significant reduction
of performance, most likely attributed to the LinkedList.Remove method being O(n).  As each
thread maintains its own cache of 1024 terms, these overhead in performing the removal is
a drain on performance.
>> At this time we have disabled the cache in the method TermInfosReader.TermInfo Get(Term
term, bool useCache) by always setting the useCache parameter to false inside the body of
the method.  After doing this we saw performance return back to the 2.3.2 levels.  I have
not yet had the opportunity to experiment with other implementations within the SimpleLRUCache
to address the performance issue.  One approach that would might solve the issue is to use
the HashedLinkedList<T> class provided in the C5 collection library [http://www.itu.dk/research/c5/].
>> Michael
>> Michael Garski
>> Search Architect
>> MySpace.com
>> www.myspace.com/michaelgarski <http://%27www.myspace.com/mgarski>
>> {quote}
>>     
>
>   



Mime
View raw message