Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 21494 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2009 19:30:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Apr 2009 19:30:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 71781 invoked by uid 500); 10 Apr 2009 19:30:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 71700 invoked by uid 500); 10 Apr 2009 19:30:37 -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 71690 invoked by uid 99); 10 Apr 2009 19:30:37 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:30:37 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.200.169] (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.169) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:30:29 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so1189705wff.20 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:30:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.147.15 with SMTP id u15mr1408338wfd.152.1239391806042; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:30:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <49DF98A2.7090609@gmail.com> References: <70422ecc0904100738v23806a91gba4fca747ba3748f@mail.gmail.com> <9ac0c6aa0904100748i65219c81k39274e15785ac082@mail.gmail.com> <9ac0c6aa0904101047v159294f6wf743feee844ee38c@mail.gmail.com> <49DF90D7.6020304@lucidimagination.com> <9ac0c6aa0904101150n12578f4al3bc4a8632d54fe1c@mail.gmail.com> <49DF98A2.7090609@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:30:06 -0400 Message-ID: <9ac0c6aa0904101230g37f17b3bteb960aeb2625c63a@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: RangeFilter performance problem using MultiReader From: Michael McCandless To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > 24 segments is bound to be quite a bit slower than an optimized index for > most things I'd be curious just how true this really is (in general)... my guess is the "long tail of tiny segments" gets into the OS's IO cache (as long as the system stays hot) and doesn't actually hurt things much. Has anyone tested this (performance of unoptimized vs optimized indexes, in general) recently? To be a fair comparison, there should be no deletions in the index. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org