Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 22145 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2004 13:33:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 15 Jul 2004 13:33:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 55832 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2004 13:32:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 55654 invoked by uid 500); 15 Jul 2004 13:32:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Developers List" Reply-To: "Lucene Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 55640 invoked by uid 99); 15 Jul 2004 13:32:56 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [141.156.69.115] (HELO mail.infosciences.com) (141.156.69.115) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.27.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 06:32:52 -0700 Received: from Aviran (unknown [141.156.69.109]) by mail.infosciences.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDDBF1182D3 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:34:47 -0400 (EDT) From: "Aviran" To: "'Lucene Developers List'" Subject: RE: FW: Lucene Search has poor cpu utilization on a 4-CPU machine Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:34:55 -0400 Message-ID: <002201c46a70$87074ae0$6a00a8c0@Aviran> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <40F59B2F.4050402@apache.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Importance: Normal X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > The second one is on > org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentReader.norms(SegmentReader.java:318)=20 > which is a synchronized method thus causing locks. I guess the=20 > synchronization is done for a good reason, but you probably know the=20 > answer better then me. I'm surprised this is showing up. Can you tell more about the size of=20 your index and the nature of your queries? If you're, e.g., doing lots=20 of range or wildcard queries, then I can maybe see this showing up a=20 little. What is your benchmark like? Are you "warming the cache" when you're performing these benchmarks? In = other words, are you first sending a few queries at a low rate before=20 you start slamming it with high traffic? If you're not, and/or you have = a lot of fields, or you re-open searchers a lot, then this could show up = too. Doug My test index is pretty small size, about 250 documents and about 24 = fields in each document.=20 The test is done by starting 10 threads that repeat simple one word = query (each thread query on a different word). Neither range nor wildcard = query is done. I let the test run for about a minute and then I do a full thread dump = to see the stack trace. I use a single searcher which never gets closed. Aviran --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org