lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Trcek <>
Subject Re: Index size and performance degradation
Date Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:56:25 GMT
On Sunday 12 June 2011 22:12:01 Michael McCandless wrote:
> Anyway, I don't think that's a good tradeoff, in general, for our
> users, because very few apps truly require immediate consistency from
> Lucene (can anyone give an example where their app depends on
> immediate consistency...?

For database (enterprise resource planning) applications we are in 
progress of replacing native database queries to lucene queries, 
because lucene offers an efficient combination of fulltext and 
structured (including facets) queries. Til now clients expect that if 
they change something it will be immediately reflected in their "lists" 
aka queries.

If lucene reopen() won't be sufficient in performance (I didn't measure) 
we would solve it by an additional short lived index for new objects, 
which complicates the architecture, or by modifying the merge strategy.

> I think it's better to spend time during reopen so that searches
> aren't slower. 

Absolutely, if you build an internet search engine. For our closed world 
with numbered clients search speed doesn't have that impact. It must 
scale for one client on one cpu core - and buy as many cores as 


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message