lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: potential indexing perormance improvement for compound index - cut IO - have more files though
Date Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:50:38 GMT

On Dec 15, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:

> I think Doron is right on the money here.  I know one "customer"  
> who'd be happy to trade its file descriptors for less IO -  
> simpy.com.  It's exactly what Doron describes - a busy system with  
> a LOT of indices.  File descriptors are kept under control by  
> carefully closing IndexSearchers, plus I can always increase the  
> max open-files limit.  What I can't easily increase is the disk  
> IO.  Sure, I could go from CFS to the multi-file format, but it  
> would be nice to have that third, middle ground choice.

Out of curiosity, does the non-compound format yield any search-time  
benefits?  I would think that would be the case only if the system- 
level file stream feeding the the buffered IndexInput objects were  
maintaining its own (unnecessary) buffers.

Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research
http://www.rectangular.com/



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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