lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Poor QPS with highlighting
Date Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:05:28 GMT
Google uses dedicated highlighting servers.  Maybe this architecture would
work for you.

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Michael Stoppelman <stopman@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> My search backends are only able to eek out 13-15 qps even with the entire
> index in memory (this makes it very expensive to scale). According to my
> YourKit profiler 80% of the program's time ends up in highlighting. With
> highlighting disabled my backend gets about 45-50 qps (cheaper scaling)!
> We're using Mark's TokenSources contrib. to make reconstructing of the
> document quicker. I was contemplating patching the index to store offsets
> for every term (instead of just the ordinal positions) so that I could make
> the highlighting faster (since you would know where you hit in the document
> on the search pass). I saw this thread from 2004:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/lucene-dev@jakarta.apache.org/msg04743.html -
> which asks about adding offsets to the index but it was decided against
> because it would make the index too large. I can totally understand this;
> but as machines get more beefy it would probably be nice to make this
> optional since having 15 qps vs 50qps is quite a trade-off right now. Are
> other folks seeing this? My documents are quite big sometimes up to 300k
> tokens. Also my document fields are compressed which is also a time sink
> for
> the cpu.
>
> Please let me know if you need more details, happy to share.
>
> Sincerely,
> M
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message