lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <>
Subject Re: Performanmce of MultiSearcher?
Date Mon, 28 Mar 2005 04:47:27 GMT
I spoke to one person whose company runs searches over 300 indices with
either MutliSearcher or ParallelMultiSearcher, and apparently this is
not an issue.  I never had to search so many indices at once.  The
person is on this list, so maybe he will speak up and share more of his
experience with this setup.


--- Paul Querna <> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am working on using Lucence based indexes for the ASF's mod_mbox. 
> Current versions of mod_mbox support MIME, and I am trying to add
> full 
> text searching. (Then we can completely remove Eyebrowse)
> Currently I am hacking around with the C++ (CLucence) Implementation,
> but I intend to migrate to Lucence4c shortly.
> I was structuring one Lucence Index per-mailing list.  To search All 
> mailing lists, I was planning on using a MultiSearcher.
> Currently, the ASF public mail archives use about 17 Gigs,
> uncompressed, 
> in the raw mbox format.
> There are also about ~300 mailing lists in the public archives.
> Can a multi-searcher quickly search 300 different indexes?  I am 
> thinking that it will not.  300 separate indexes is lots of files to 
> scan, even if Lucence is fast.  Any experience from other users would
> be 
> helpful.
> Would it better to have a Single Main Index, for all of the lists,
> and 
> include the List Names as a keyed field?
> I suspect most searches would be restricted to one or two lists, but
> I 
> would like good performance if I wanted to search all of the ASF
> lists.
> Ideas/Comments?  Anyone willing to help me write some C :) ?
> Thanks,
> -Paul
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message