lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mike Klaas" <mike.kl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: potential indexing perormance improvement for compound index - cut IO - have more files though
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:36:52 GMT
On 12/14/06, Doron Cohen <DORONC@il.ibm.com> wrote:

> But anyhow, this is not a negligible difference, and for real large
> indexes, and busy systems, when the just written non-compound segment is
> not in the system caches, it might have more effect. Possibly, search
> performance during indexing would be improved by less indexing IO. Also,
> delay for addDocument call that triggers a merge should become smaller.
>
> Thanks for your comments, also (but not only) on (1) an (3) above.

My main comment is that the benefits of this change can be achieved by
using the non-compound index format.  For people that care about the
difference in performance, it isn't difficult to configure your system
to mitigate the problems of the non-compound format, and they probably
have already done so.

It would help the people who are file-descriptor conscious, but it
also increases lucene's fd footprint by a factor of four.

-Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message