lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <>
Subject Re: Nio File Caching & Performance Test
Date Mon, 15 May 2006 22:47:00 GMT
Robert Engels wrote:
> The most important statistic is that the reading via the local cache, vs.
> going to the OS (where the block is cached) is 3x faster (22344 vs. 68578).
> With random reads, when the block may not be in the OS cache, it is 8x
> faster (72766 vs. 586391).
[ ... ]
> This test only demonstrates improvements in the low-level IO layer, but one
> could infer significant performance improvements for common searches and/or
> document retrievals.

That is not an inference I would make.  There should be some 
improvement, but whether it is significant is not clear to me.

> Is there a standard Lucene search performance I could run both with and
> without the NioFSDirectory to demonstrate real world performance
> improvements? I have some internal tests that I am collating, but I would
> rather use a standard test if possible.

No, we don't have a standard benchmark suite.  Folks have talked about 
developing one, but I don't think one yet exists.

Report what you have.  Describe the collection, how it is indexed, how 
you've selected queries, and the improvement in average response time.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message