This is a rather broad question, but in the comments the OP has specified that they are comparing cylindrical Fresnel lenses to "normal" Fresnel lenses. We can get some insight by considering things at a high level, and considering why lenses might be used on PV at all.
Within its normal operating range, the relationship between the amount of light falling on a PV cell and the amount of electricity produced is roughly linear:
The amount of electricity produced also scales linearly with the area of the PV panel: more panel = more electricity.
If we put a concentrating lens above a PV panel, what we are effectively doing is collecting the light from a wide area and focussing it on a small bit of PV material. Given the two linear relationships above, all else being equal this should give a similar output to just covering the wider area with unconcentrated PV and doing away with the optics.
Any advantage or disadvantage to concentrating optics must, then, lie in more detailed factors. For instance, it might be worth using optics to allow the use of a smaller quantity of more expensive PV material. On the other hand, concentrating the light on a small area also concentrates the heat, which must then be dealt with... there's an engineering optimisation to be done there.
This allows us to come back to the question of cylindrical (linear) vs spherical lenses. Cylindrical lenses concentrate the incoming light in only one dimension. As such, they can be considered as a compromise between unconcentrated PV and full spherical lens arrays. They may also be cheaper to manufacture and install than large numbers of spherical lenses (but I have no evidence for this, and if microlens arrays are used for the spherical version, it may not be true).
Depending on the exact intent of the question, you may also find the answers to this question on physics.SE to be of interest.