lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Busch (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-888) Improve indexing performance by increasing internal buffer sizes
Date Fri, 25 May 2007 20:36:16 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12499221
] 

Michael Busch commented on LUCENE-888:
--------------------------------------

> So, back to your statement, a 1k buffer doesn't save 
> physical i/o, but nor should it incur extra physical i/o.  

Yes, I agree.

> It does incur extra system calls, but uses less memory, 
> which is a tradeoff.

A coworker told me that he ran some experiments with buffer 
sizes in a different application, and he found out that 
increasing the buffer size beyond the disks block size
further speed up things. In these tests he read a whole
file sequentially, which means that the speedup came from
saving system calls, right? 

So yes, it is a tradeoff between memory usage and amount 
of system calls. That's the reason for my suggestion to
only increase the buffer size for input streams that we
don't clone, like the base stream in the compound reader.

But I'm just sort of guessing here, I think we should run
some performance experiments. Mike already opened 
LUCENE-893 for that.

> Improve indexing performance by increasing internal buffer sizes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-888
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-888
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Index
>    Affects Versions: 2.1
>            Reporter: Michael McCandless
>         Assigned To: Michael McCandless
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: LUCENE-888.patch
>
>
> In working on LUCENE-843, I noticed that two buffer sizes have a
> substantial impact on overall indexing performance.
> First is BufferedIndexOutput.BUFFER_SIZE (also used by
> BufferedIndexInput).  Second is CompoundFileWriter's buffer used to
> actually build the compound file.  Both are now 1 KB (1024 bytes).
> I ran the same indexing test I'm using for LUCENE-843.  I'm indexing
> ~5,500 byte plain text docs derived from the Europarl corpus
> (English).  I index 200,000 docs with compound file enabled and term
> vector positions & offsets stored plus stored fields.  I flush
> documents at 16 MB RAM usage, and I set maxBufferedDocs carefully to
> not hit LUCENE-845.  The resulting index is 1.7 GB.  The index is not
> optimized in the end and I left mergeFactor @ 10.
> I ran the tests on a quad-core OS X 10 machine with 4-drive RAID 0 IO
> system.
> At 1 KB (current Lucene trunk) it takes 622 sec to build the index; if
> I increase both buffers to 8 KB it takes 554 sec to build the index,
> which is an 11% overall gain!
> I will run more tests to see if there is a natural knee in the curve
> (buffer size above which we don't really gain much more performance).
> I'm guessing we should leave BufferedIndexInput's default BUFFER_SIZE
> at 1024, at least for now.  During searching there can be quite a few
> of this class instantiated, and likely a larger buffer size for the
> freq/prox streams could actually hurt search performance for those
> searches that use skipping.
> The CompoundFileWriter buffer is created only briefly, so I think we
> can use a fairly large (32 KB?) buffer there.  And there should not be
> too many BufferedIndexOutputs alive at once so I think a large-ish
> buffer (16 KB?) should be OK.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


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