lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: lucene 2.9.0RC4 slower than 2.4.1?
Date Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:02:45 GMT
A few quick notes -

Lucene 2.9 old api doesn't appear much worse than Lucene 2.4?

You save a lot with the new Intern impl, because thats not a hotspot
anymore. But then,
RandomAccessFile seeks end up being a lot more of the pie. They look
fairly similar in speed overall?

It looks like the major bottleneck with 2.9 new api is that its using
NIOFSDirectory (your on unix I guess, and it now
defaults to that on non Windows os's), and that appears to be a real
killer for you. Its taking half the time for its
reads.  ???

No conclusions yet, but I'm looking it over. Some other guys will come
in with some ideas as well.

Do confirm that those profiling results are on a single segment though.

- Mark


Mark Miller wrote:
> Thomas Becker wrote:
>   
>> Here's the results of profiling 10 different search requests:
>>
>> http://ankeschwarzer.de/tmp/lucene_24_oldapi.png
>> http://ankeschwarzer.de/tmp/lucene_29_oldapi.png
>> http://ankeschwarzer.de/tmp/lucene_29_newapi.png
>>
>> But you already gave me a good hint. The index being used is an old one build
>> with lucene 2.4. I will now try a freshly build 2.9 index and see if performance
>> improves. Maybe that already solves the issue...stupid me...
>>   
>>     
> That shouldn't be an issue unless there is some odd bug.
>
>   
>> We're updating the index every 30 min. at the moment and it gets optimized after
>> each update.
>>   
>>     
> So this profiling is on an optimized index (eg a single segment) ?
> That would be odd indeed, and possibly point to some of the scoring changes.
>
>   
>> Mark Miller wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Thomas Becker wrote:
>>>     
>>>       
>>>> Hey Mark,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for your reply. Will do. Results will follow in a couple of minutes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>>>         
>>> Thanks, awesome.
>>>
>>> Also, how many segments (approx) are in your index? If there are a lot,
>>> have you/can you try the same tests on an optimized index? Don't want to
>>> get ahead of the profiling results, but just to continue the info loop.
>>>
>>>     
>>>       
>>   
>>     
>
>
>   


-- 
- Mark

http://www.lucidimagination.com




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message