Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
From: "Aviran" <amordo@infosciences.com>
To: "'Lucene Users List'" <lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Pool of IndexReaders or Pool of Searchers?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:42:20 -0400
Message-ID: <001b01c468df$38957090$6a00a8c0@Aviran>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <200407130737.i6D7bK022248@mail.fulfilnet.com.au>
Importance: Normal

Try to compile this code changes into lucene
http://www.mail-archive.com/lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg06116.html
In our tests it improved performance by ~100%

Aviran

-----Original Message-----
From: Anson Lau [mailto:alau@fulfil-net.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:40 AM
To: 'Lucene Users List'
Subject: RE: Pool of IndexReaders or Pool of Searchers?


Don't have a formal report but I can give you a bit more details:

What are we testing: a search app powered by lucene, search app is a web =
app
built on Struts.
Index: 1.8 million database records
Hardware: Dual P4 2.8 HT, 4G Ram, Raid 5 SCIC HDs.
Directory type: FSDirectory

Load test app: A load test app which has 15 threads, each firing 1 =
search
request (http request) per second to the search app.

All the http requests are search request, but keep in mind all the =
overhead
of jsp, struts, etc.

We thought especially with multiple CPU systems using a small pool of =
index
searcher may improve concurrency.

Under lucene 1.4:
Using 1 static index searcher: 12 request per second.
Using a pool of 4 index search: same 12 request per second

Under lucene 1.3:
I can't remember the exact numbers, but pooling index searcher did make =
a
noticeable difference.


Hope that's useful.

Anson


-----Original Message-----
From: Vince Taluskie [mailto:vince@taluskie.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:50 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Pool of IndexReaders or Pool of Searchers?

Can you supply details on the config tested?

Vince

Anson Lau wrote:

>Hi,
>
>When I did some load testing on a lucene powered search app, using a=20
>pool of index searchers doesn't give me any more search per second than =

>just using a singleton index searcher.
>
>Anson
>
>
>Quoting yahootintin.1247688@bloglines.com:
>
> =20
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I have multiple threads reading an index.  Should they all be using
>>the same IndexReader and using a pool of IndexSearchers?  Or
>>should they be
>>using a pool of IndexReaders?
>>
>>Basically, one reader or many?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>
>>   =20
>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> =20
>
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>>lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>   =20
>>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> =20
>

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


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


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