Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 38530 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2009 20:58:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2009 20:58:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 71477 invoked by uid 500); 23 Nov 2009 20:58:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 71421 invoked by uid 500); 23 Nov 2009 20:58:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 71413 invoked by uid 99); 23 Nov 2009 20:58:03 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:58:03 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2000.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.140] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.140) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:58:00 +0000 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935B9234C04C for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:57:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1704469682.1259009859591.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:57:39 +0000 (UTC) From: "Tim Smith (JIRA)" To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-2086) When resolving deletes, IW should resolve in term sort order In-Reply-To: <220303101.1258728339970.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2086?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12781615#action_12781615 ] Tim Smith commented on LUCENE-2086: ----------------------------------- Got some performance numbers: Description of test (NOTE: this is representative of actions that may occur in a running system (not a contrived test)): * feed 4 million operations (3/4 are deletes, 1/4 are updates (single field)) * commit * feed 1 million updates (about 1/3 are updates, 2/3/ deletes (randomly selected)) * commit Numbers: || Desc || Old || New || | feed 4 million | 56914ms | 15698ms | | commit 4 million | 9072ms | 14291ms | | total (4 million) | 65986ms | 29989ms | | update 1 million | 46096ms | 11340ms | | commit 1 million | 13501ms | 9273ms | | total (1 million) | 59597ms | 20613ms | This shows significant improvements with new patched data (1/3 the time for 1 million, about 1/2 the time for initial 4 million feed) This means i'm gonna definitely need to incorporate this patch while i'm still on 3.0 (will upgrade to 3.0 as soon as its out, then apply this fix) Ideally, a 3.0.1 would be forthcoming in the next month or so with this fix so i wouldn't have to maintain this patched overlay of code > When resolving deletes, IW should resolve in term sort order > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Key: LUCENE-2086 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2086 > Project: Lucene - Java > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Index > Reporter: Michael McCandless > Assignee: Michael McCandless > Fix For: 3.1 > > Attachments: LUCENE-2086.patch > > > See java-dev thread "IndexWriter.updateDocument performance improvement". -- 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