Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A7D869893 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:20:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 24567 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2012 18:20:48 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 24519 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2012 18:20:48 -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 24509 invoked by uid 99); 8 Mar 2012 18:20:48 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:20:48 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of uwe@thetaphi.de designates 188.138.97.18 as permitted sender) Received: from [188.138.97.18] (HELO mail.sd-datasolutions.de) (188.138.97.18) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:20:39 +0000 Received: from VEGA (port-92-196-70-119.dynamic.qsc.de [92.196.70.119]) by mail.sd-datasolutions.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED44114AA24F for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:20:18 +0000 (UTC) From: "Uwe Schindler" To: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: More About NOT Optimizing Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:20:22 +0100 Message-ID: <01b601ccfd58$2062d880$61288980$@thetaphi.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFbjN84CDXLL7yvQ3GK87k40GMr1wKJNWu6AaVchAuXIiG8AA== Content-Language: de X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, > Interesting coincidence, just last night one of our in-house indexes must have > decide it could use some merging and dropped 5 segments (of ~30+) and 4-5 > GB (of a total ~20-25 GB). So it was great to see it in action. > > I'm in no hurry, but I'll be eventually looking into using TieredMergePolicy; > maybe as I move to 4.0 (I think it becomes the default then). Writing my own > merge policy seems a bit further off :-) TieredMP is already the default in Lucene 3.5, unless you explicitely set another one! Uwe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org