Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of vfunstein@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <538D9BAC.7030501@mailarchiva.com>
References: <01AFE0FB733B9944974A82A09CEB7A0309C81ABB21@mail3.imedx.com>
	<1400570841.2420.155.camel@te-prime>
	<01AFE0FB733B9944974A82A09CEB7A0309C835D126@mail3.imedx.com>
	<1400578244.2420.170.camel@te-prime>
	<01AFE0FB733B9944974A82A09CEB7A0309C835D16A@mail3.imedx.com>
	<1400581087.2420.182.camel@te-prime>
	<01AFE0FB733B9944974A82A09CEB7A0309C835D36D@mail3.imedx.com>
	<1401153243448-4138215.post@n3.nabble.com>
	<003301cf7974$7a200600$6e601200$@gmx.de>
	<01AFE0FB733B9944974A82A09CEB7A0309C881E6CF@mail3.imedx.com>
	<CAN4YXvcH=oKFmgrw2ZiGkiwOc2cq4RR1FQsq4E-Cw-nToA2Sqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAN4YXvf8oXwev4U8TErS3mmURwNuja6w2_PB=sxNYoKkqL2_4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<538C1F0F.3010300@mailarchiva.com>
	<CA+iSzr21AX7ZgdMHxGS7=nQqry9SupSqLjN8AFe5CZ1VJR8EfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<538C5174.7040101@mailarchiva.com>
	<CALr4Hzr+qWTi-o2yyBp9Fz_m66oFYXEG=w9G2cT0ecxPUdv3_A@mail.gmail.com>
	<538D962E.2020809@mailarchiva.com>
	<CAPz8bx1PeKuvqgP=VqEnc2u8G9L=R_5TTJcQ5wj+VgfwBayFDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<538D99A4.1060605@mailarchiva.com>
	<538D9BAC.7030501@mailarchiva.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 03:09:38 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CALr4HzpZe9AuKR6bjv4gik-m133DNV=3ONYkDUyi38V-9JXWzw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: search performance
From: Vitaly Funstein <vfunstein@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01419c6a9d9f3604faebb5a7

--089e01419c6a9d9f3604faebb5a7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

A couple of questions.

1. What are you trying to achieve by setting the current thread's priority
to max possible value? Is it grabbing as much CPU time as possible? In my
experience, mucking with thread priorities like this is at best futile, and
at worst quite detrimental to responsiveness and overall performance of the
system as a whole. I would remove that line.

2. This seems suspicious:

if (getPagination()) {
                max = start + length;
            } else {
                max = getMaxResults();
            }

If start is at 100M, and length is 1000 - what do you think Lucene will try
and do when you pass this max to the collector?


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Jamie <jamie@mailarchiva.com> wrote:

> FYI: We are also using a multireader to search over multiple index readers.
>
> Search under a million documents yields good response times. When you get
> into the 60M territory, search slows to a crawl.
>
> On 2014/06/03, 11:47 AM, Jamie wrote:
>
>> Sure... see below:
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

--089e01419c6a9d9f3604faebb5a7--