Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 2545 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2008 18:18:02 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Dec 2008 18:18:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 9002 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2008 18:18:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 8966 invoked by uid 500); 2 Dec 2008 18:18:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list java-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 8955 invoked by uid 99); 2 Dec 2008 18:18:06 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:18:05 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of glen.newton@gmail.com designates 74.125.92.24 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.92.24] (HELO qw-out-2122.google.com) (74.125.92.24) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:16:38 +0000 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so662442qwi.53 for ; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:17:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition; bh=kfMqCt8S48bWIww48f9qCp0nUb7IZgKj8H1RMy/SUQM=; b=pc0bWPXV1Odd5v5uzX0UTuLj41YN4iyV2AC4RXl04tTEA+k0O7JDV3+mIN1msda99R zQWJSGrawBvWkiyHk6eZyNT8hE3U/d48Nv+RodFkXW9M+qGPJQsMPhiu/r5FjVCfsblG /QTEkFrnekl/nM4Z69EWg9dUmz0j7vZeirv9s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=m/qjoje1PoTI24580ZzQtsVxdbhYIc2cbd80jSOP0sBahv6Q3hXTGMG0OQ2dbET5wn i4Wiby9oc+iISi9vy1cmTnd6El78WBP49C4UZR0Yhn55I94GEWN1xUqgjZD49SNQmd5M GytyJI5J/5iFvtCmNl3AreTN6tz4LLQSynnrc= Received: by 10.142.177.5 with SMTP id z5mr4995220wfe.40.1228241844994; Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:17:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.143.40.11 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:17:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5e76f3840812021017m4c33ad7fj919a3edf466b90ba@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:17:24 -0500 From: "Glen Newton" To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Merging indexes & multicore/multithreading MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Let's say I have 8 indexes on a 4 core system and I want to merge them (inside a single vm instance). Is it better to do a single merge of all 8, or to in parallel threads merge in pairs, until there is only a single index left? I guess the question involves how multi-threaded merging is and if it will take advantage of all cores. thanks, -glen -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org