Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 43819 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2005 19:05:31 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2005 19:05:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 55821 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2005 19:05:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 55770 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2005 19:05:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Users List" Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 55723 invoked by uid 99); 18 Feb 2005 19:05:20 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from server1.hostmon.com (HELO server1.hostmon.com) (66.139.76.19) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:05:17 -0800 Received: (qmail 7194 invoked by uid 532); 18 Feb 2005 19:05:00 -0000 Received: from dave-lucene-user@tropo.com by server1.hostmon.com by uid 0 with qmail-scanner-1.16 (spamassassin: 3.0.0. Clear:. Processed in 0.114568 secs); 18 Feb 2005 19:05:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.31.1.2?) (127.0.0.1) by 0 with SMTP; 18 Feb 2005 19:04:59 -0000 Message-ID: <42163C6A.7070009@tropo.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 11:05:14 -0800 From: David Spencer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lucene Users List Subject: Re: Search Performance References: <20050218155448.3327116893@mail01.nyc-ofc.criticalmention.com> In-Reply-To: <20050218155448.3327116893@mail01.nyc-ofc.criticalmention.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Are you using the highlighter or doing anything non-trivial in displaying the results? Are the pages being compressed (mod_gzip or some servlet equivalent)? This definitely helps, though to see the effect you may have to make sure your simulated users are "remote". Also consider caching search results if it's reasonable to assume users may search for the same things. I made some measurements on caching on my site: http://www.searchmorph.com/weblog/index.php?id=41 http://www.searchmorph.com/weblog/index.php?id=40 And I use OSCache: http://www.searchmorph.com/weblog/index.php?id=38 http://www.opensymphony.com/oscache/ Michael Celona wrote: > What is single handedly the best way to improve search performance? I have > an index in the 2G range stored on the local file system of the searcher. > Under a load test of 5 simultaneous users my average search time is ~4700 > ms. Under a load test of 10 simultaneous users my average search time is > ~10000 ms. I have given the JVM 2G of memory and am a using a dual 3GHz > Zeons. Any ideas? > > > > Michael > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org