jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Reutegger <marcel.reuteg...@gmx.net>
Subject Re: Potential performance improvement?
Date Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:33:58 GMT

thanks for the pointers.

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:36, Alexander Klimetschek <aklimets@day.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 23:05, James Abley <james.abley@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just curious if any of the devs are familiar with zoie [1],[2] and know
>> whether it might be useful in Jackrabbit?
> IIUC, the additional advantage of zoie over standard Lucene is that it
> makes new documents immediately available for searches by having them
> integrated into the index via a temporary in-memory representation.
> Thus it avoids the time it takes to merge the newly indexed data back
> into the full disk-based index.

jackrabbit does it in a similar way for quite some time now.

some of the features of zoie are also considered useful for jackrabbit
and jira issues have been filed already. e.g. optimize only a single
segment based on how many nodes are marked as deleted.


> But it still needs to wait for the time it takes to actually index
> documents (to make up the temporary, partial in-memory index), right?
> In my experience, in practical use of Jackrabbit with binary
> documents, most of the time is spent for full-text extraction from
> various file-formats. That's why this is post-poned via a queue (on
> demand, if it takes too long), to speed up the session.save() and
> update the full-text index later. The actual process of merging index
> segments is already quite fast, at least AFAIK.
> Regards,
> Alex
> --
> Alexander Klimetschek
> alexander.klimetschek@day.com

View raw message