Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of vfunstein@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1351273804.28138.YahooMailNeo@web120702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1351273804.28138.YahooMailNeo@web120702.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:13:29 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CALr4HzqRewfbyjmD=Ma=odvvS0xpUasSGNQdiEEpnX6kn4JpoA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lucene 3.6.0 Index Size
From: Vitaly Funstein <vfunstein@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efe2dcc75d98504ccfb1d57

--e0cb4efe2dcc75d98504ccfb1d57
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

One thing to keep in mind is that the default merge policy has changed in
3.6 from 2.3.2 (I'm almost certain of that). So it's just a hunch but you
may have some unmerged segments left over at the end. Try calling
IndexWriter.close(true) after you're done indexing.

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:50 AM, kiwi clive <kiwi_clive@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello.
>
> We have an index that when creted using lucene2.3.2, has a size of about
> 4G.
>
> Creating the same index (with the same parameters) with lucene 3.6.0
> results in an 11G index.
>
> Could someone shed some light into why the index is so much larger, given
> the same data and the same parameters?
>
> I realize this is a large version jump but a doubling in index size does
> not seem a step in the right direction to me ;-)
>
> I am using cfs format.
>
> Thanks,
> Clive
>

--e0cb4efe2dcc75d98504ccfb1d57--