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: local policy)
Message-ID: <1420722856.2730.272.camel@te-prime>
Subject: Re: lucene scalability query
From: Toke Eskildsen <te@statsbiblioteket.dk>
Reply-To: te@statsbiblioteket.dk
To: "java-user@lucene.apache.org" <java-user@lucene.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 14:14:16 +0100
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAONpqqgrpAx_zkPbBYTwXmw0tg6a4QMu=ALsYcPK-4E7MO8EOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAONpqqgrpAx_zkPbBYTwXmw0tg6a4QMu=ALsYcPK-4E7MO8EOA@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: State and University Library, Denmark
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 12:03 +0100, sreedevi s wrote:
>    I am doing a scalability analysis for lucene search in my application.I
> was running my junits with different sets of data which are like
> 1K,10K,100K and 1000K.

[...]

Your table copy-paste did not work. I tried extracting the key data:

10K, attempt 1: 152ms
10K, attempt 2: 32ms
10K, attempt 3: 20ms

100K, attempt 1: 136ms
100K, attempt 2: 28ms
100K, attempt 3: 27ms

> Ideally, it search time should have been higher with 100K data.Why is it
> that I get lesser searcher time with 100K data.

Based on your reported index time, your indexes are tiny. What you are
seeing is probably just statistical flukes. Try re-running your tests a
few times and you will see the numbers change.

- Toke Eskildsen


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