Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 64467 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2009 14:02:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Jun 2009 14:02:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 45430 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2009 14:02:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 45369 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2009 14:02:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 45358 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jun 2009 14:02:11 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:02:11 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.4 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [77.238.184.49] (HELO smtp111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com) (77.238.184.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:02:02 +0000 Received: (qmail 4711 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2009 14:01:39 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; b=yrbdiG23RnslJV7jawPfM1kReYJWwZfKelvi7B5Sv76ZG1gJBf4sd36XGnQ3w4nT0klY9YVtOfAj5euq+CwVnUCyxQbRyphQZWXjsA/CPW1lThdGlfTNibNAUAYUkUx8mIcKJjUi4GRhVLpdzMahbXm50UAUKdYtll/RafpICEs= ; Received: from unknown (HELO MIQSHAUN) (sbarriba@86.134.79.167 with login) by smtp111.mail.ukl.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Jun 2009 14:01:39 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: GBpOkfaswBDNrzFlsTrha4U9WPxCafTYZCtKv5cv6cVs X-YMail-OSG: q6EgkVwVM1mnfckOs.fFqH4B0IO2nurwdO19Ez1FZLY.jaxv4PBmVvhXcOyAI2nqcADExHbXIIXhb.fcj6dWfv4t0rjjzDAiqXGT76s3qwgEI_yjVBbugApvZnHYLbdAD3O8K2t3jAeNEjXa6MiWhK8v.fwtTXB81WVennX17yqzZJATjOjFgCVdkiM6PDe8Djb514BajJmjT86DhfBwx9AbP7OjkFJ3j33BHsV50N9YehFWRe1i_g8.61GOpKjsFhsyWPk4VN0fEXb.GjuRDBTIIUNvEDn3h9LPsCWzLfRX5mL8NZY- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 From: "Shaun Barriball" To: Subject: Should Lucene index file size reduce when items are deleted? Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 15:01:41 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c9e778$7bd5c9f0$73815dd0$@co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C9E780.DD9A31F0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcnneHt2bO7VWWlGTFCBGXjQgxq9wQ== Content-Language: en-gb X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C9E780.DD9A31F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, We're running JackRabbit 1.4.5 at present. Some of our larger workspaces have 200,000+ textual items which has resulted in [workspace]/index directories in exceess of 750 meg. After deleting 50,000+ textual items the index directory does not appear to have changed in size which surprised us. The underlying concern primarily is performance and keeping the licence indexes small enough to fit in 100% in memory, disk space being a secondary consideration. When deleting say 25% of the items should we expect the size of the Lucene indexes to reduce by a similar amount? Regards, Shaun ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C9E780.DD9A31F0--