lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Karl Wettin <karl.wet...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: NumericRangeQuery performance with 1/2 billion documents in the index
Date Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:42:08 GMT

3 jan 2010 kl. 16.32 skrev Yonik Seeley:

> Perhaps this is just a huge index, and not enough of it can be  
> cached in RAM.
> Adding additional clauses to a boolean query incrementally destroys  
> locality.
>
> 104GB of index and 4GB of RAM means you're going to be hitting the
> disk constantly.  You need more hardware - if you're requirements are
> low (low query volume, high query latency of a few seconds OK) then
> you can probably get away with a single box... just either get  a SSD
> or get more RAM (like 32G or more).
>
> If you want higher query volumes or consistent sub-second search,
> you're going to have to go distributed.
> Roll your own or look at Solr.

I'm not sure I agree.

A 104GB index says nothing about the date field. And it says nothing  
about the range of the query.

If you ask me then what really is needed is some statistics about how  
many terms the date field contains and how wide the range query is.


      karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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