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 E60349115 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 18:02:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 67589 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2012 18:02:04 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-java-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 67520 invoked by uid 500); 8 Mar 2012 18:02:04 -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 67511 invoked by uid 99); 8 Mar 2012 18:02:03 -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 18:02:03 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.78.17.16] (HELO EXHUB018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net) (64.78.17.16) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:01:54 +0000 Received: from EXVMBX018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.47]) by EXHUB018-1.exch018.msoutlookonline.net ([64.78.17.16]) with mapi; Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:01:33 -0800 From: Paul Hill To: "java-user@lucene.apache.org" Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:01:32 -0800 Subject: RE: More About NOT Optimizing Thread-Topic: More About NOT Optimizing Thread-Index: Acz8lylZ/p0IdrqBTpC26TeiArUx7gAuSiNQ Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > I think a good question is whether you are really seeing performance issu= es due to the 1/3 deleted- > but-not-yet-reclaimed documents... No, I'm NOT worried about performance. I've got the message about optimize= (). I was just looking for something I might do maybe once or twice a year= when the index was off-line or not in heavy use to just get rid of what wa= sn't needed. It's sort of like cleaning out the reading material piled all= over my house. I can still live and entertain, but every now and then its= seems good to get rid of the excess clutter and fill the recycling bin and= make a run to the used book store. =20 Interesting coincidence, just last night one of our in-house indexes must h= ave 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.=20 I'm in no hurry, but I'll be eventually looking into using TieredMergePolic= y; maybe as I move to 4.0 (I think it becomes the default then). Writing m= y own merge policy seems a bit further off :-) As usual, thanks for the discussion. -Paul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org