Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of r.ventaglio@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.220.158 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=sNN2dXL2Zv5R/GTWoagJf0El2k8AiMJOkxo3/aJfdFo5u1kygP2SkJabKhE/YYYgu7
         qGW5R3BktbdyMsPNs+x/GFhICStaXQ93wTRuZ5QNiq+jY430jbJ6i4uYOr+vpXE445vF
         WQ5KNNSHEORWpxudVtljnnH2yGz2oVhAO4UZU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9ac0c6aa0904100748i65219c81k39274e15785ac082@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70422ecc0904100738v23806a91gba4fca747ba3748f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9ac0c6aa0904100748i65219c81k39274e15785ac082@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:20:10 +0200
Message-ID: <70422ecc0904101020k17cab6a8xe2365c1f2b5156b3@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RangeFilter performance problem using MultiReader
From: Raf <r.ventaglio@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636417ed5a9accf0467369302

--001636417ed5a9accf0467369302
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Mike,
thank you for your answer.

I have downloaded lucene-core-2.9-dev and I have executed my tests (both on
multireader and on consolidated index) using this new version, but the
performance are very similar to the previous ones.
The big index is 7/8 times faster than multireader version.

Raf

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Michael McCandless <
lucene@mikemccandless.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately, in Lucene 2.4, any query that needs to enumerate Terms
> (Prefix, Wildcard, Range, etc.) has poor performance on Multi*Readers.
>  I think the only workaround is to merge your indexes down to a single
> index.
>
> But, Lucene trunk (not yet released) has fixed this, so that searching
> through your MultiReader should give you the same performance as
> searching on a single consolidated index -- if you test this (which
> would be awesome!) please report back and let us know how it went.
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Raf <r.ventaglio@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > we are experiencing some problems using RangeFilters and we think there
> are
> > some performance issues caused by MultiReader.
> >
> > We have more or less 3M documents in 24 indexes and we read all of them
> > using a MultiReader.
> > If we do a search using only terms, there are no problems, but it if we
> add
> > to the same search terms a RangeFilter that extracts a large subset of
> the
> > documents (e.g. 500K), it takes a lot of time to execute (about 15s).
> >
> > In order to identify the problem, we have tried to consolidate the index:
> so
> > now we have the same 3M docs in a single 10GB index.
> > If we repeat the same search using this index, it takes only a small
> > fraction of the previous time (about 2s).
> >
> > Is there something we can do to improve search performance using
> > RangeFilters with MultiReader or the only solution is to have only a
> single
> > big index?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Raf
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

--001636417ed5a9accf0467369302--