lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ganesh" <emailg...@yahoo.co.in>
Subject Re: Index size and performance degradation
Date Thu, 16 Jun 2011 05:10:18 GMT
Any one could tthow some light on this? Is it a bad idea to keep multiple shards in a single
system?

Below are my reasons, Please correct me if iam wrong.

1. If single large index goes beyond GB, It may take more time to merge and optimize. 
2. Consider the total size of index is around 10 GB, then fdt file might be in 3 - 4GB. In
order to display result summary we may need to fetch the field values from the fdt file. IO
might be more as it needs to skip large amount bytes to locate the exact location. In other
words the search summary retrieval might slow.
3. It is really good for less number of concurrent users going to search at a time. 

Regards
Ganesh



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ganesh" <emailgane@yahoo.co.in>
To: <java-user@lucene.apache.org>; <te@statsbiblioteket.dk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Index size and performance degradation


Is it a bad idea to keep multiple shards in a single system?

Regards
Ganesh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Toke Eskildsen" <te@statsbiblioteket.dk>
To: <java-user@lucene.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Index size and performance degradation


> On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 10:10 +0200, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:
>> The whole point of my question was to find out if and how to make 
>> balancing on the SAME machine. Apparently thats not going to help and at 
>> a certain point we will just have to prompt the user to buy more hardware...
> 
> It really depends on your scenario. If you have few concurrent requests
> and are looking to minimize latency, sharding might help; assuming you
> have fast IO and multiple cores. You basically want to saturate all
> available resources for all requests.
> 
> On the other hand, if throughput is the issue, sharding on a single
> machine is counter-productive due to increased duplication and merging.
> 
>> Out of curiosity, isn't there anything that we can do to avoid that? for 
>> instance using memory-mapped files for the indexes? anything that would 
>> help us overcome OS limitations of that sort...
> 
> One standard advice for speeding up searches is using SSD's. Our
> (admittedly old) experiments puts SSD-performance near RAM. With the
> prices we have now, SSD's seems like an obvious choice for most setups.
> 
> We tried a few performance tests at different index sizes and for us,
> index size vs. performance looked like the power law: Heavy performance
> degradation in the beginning, less later. It makes sense when we look at
> caching and it means that if you do not require stellar performance, you
> can have very large indexes on few machines (cue Hathi Trust).
> 
> - Toke Eskildsen
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>

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


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