lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mike Klaas" <>
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 <> 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.


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

View raw message