Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48036 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2009 07:31:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 Jul 2009 07:31:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 81588 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jul 2009 07:32:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-dev-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 81502 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jul 2009 07:32:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 81494 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jul 2009 07:32:23 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:32:23 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.139.236.158] (HELO kuber.nabble.com) (216.139.236.158) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:32:14 +0000 Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MTsmQ-0004zg-4m for dev@jackrabbit.apache.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:31:54 -0700 Message-ID: <24620741.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 00:31:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Ajai To: dev@jackrabbit.apache.org Subject: Re: Performance of Jackrabbit In-Reply-To: <90a8d1c00907222358n75161f24mb0d8dba085470dfb@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Nabble-From: ajaiking@gmail.com References: <24619853.post@talk.nabble.com> <90a8d1c00907222358n75161f24mb0d8dba085470dfb@mail.gmail.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi Stefan, Thanks for the quick response. We are running the tests on a "Core 2 Duo 2.3 GHz, 4 GB RAM running Window= s Server 2003" machine. Please find attached the=20 1. repository.xml=20 2. indexconfiguration.xml. 3. source java file for upload (ThreadFeeder.java) http://www.nabble.com/file/p24620741/ThreadFeeder.java ThreadFeeder.java=20 http://www.nabble.com/file/p24620741/repository.xml repository.xml=20 http://www.nabble.com/file/p24620741/indexingconfiguration.xml indexingconfiguration.xml=20 Kindly let me know your suggestions. Thanks, Ajai G Stefan Guggisberg wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Ajai wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am in the process of Evaluation of Jackrabbit. We are running few >> performance tests. >> Here we are adding 25,000 Folder nodes with each consisting of 15 >> documents. >> >> It is taking around 37 hours to complete this process, we also tried >> using >> thread to achieve this. >> But still the time hasn't come down. >> >> It also seems that, when adding 500 Folders with 15 docs each, takes =C2= =A0~ >> 20 >> mins for a empty repository, >> >> After uploading 25000 folders, when trying to add same 500 Folders with >> 15 >> docs each, it takes ~ 5 hrs. >> >=20 > all figures are way too high. please provide more information on your > setup/configuration and environment. if possible, please also provide > some code of your tests. >=20 > cheers > stefan >=20 >> So is there a way to improve the performance of above mentioned function= s >> ?. >> >> Also kindly suggest an alternate solution to perform bulk upload? >> >> Thanks >> Ajai G >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Performance-of-Jackrabbit-tp24619853p24619853.html >> Sent from the Jackrabbit - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >=20 >=20 --=20 View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Performance-of-Jackrabb= it-tp24619853p24620741.html Sent from the Jackrabbit - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.