From java-user-return-63526-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@lucene.apache.org Thu Jan 18 19:04:16 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDB2180654 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:04:16 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 7FEA8160C2B; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:04:16 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id C41EF160C26 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:04:15 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 83044 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jan 2018 18:04:14 -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 83032 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jan 2018 18:04:14 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:04:14 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 945AAC24B8 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:04:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.379 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.379 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KAM_NUMSUBJECT=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kMZaWa-3NlLG for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:04:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f66.google.com (mail-lf0-f66.google.com [209.85.215.66]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 711675F243 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:04:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f66.google.com with SMTP id o89so23670851lfg.10 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:04:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EsO1y26ek3L8AHiSMX/W7MWawNS4z0gSwIst4mA7fZc=; b=oRAywTy3zDzvVodWpyknsb4c7TbUVgxc9uwuUBNe4Ypy7RhnYudivcEFd3hUF7/M9n gwCOSYdH+mc2uV41HAbol9p1t/B31Tx937miUwDnsItCqgDNhmrDmk9BidvDccUgS5Tq 8C4tCCOD41dLshVAIyWKwqYiwdmsxdihnZIZHNshK72QcFDsJDsD7iaWJZlZ20Y8t1Pd RAgFI/ZwSonKkjetfZ+W5i7Tvpt4S0vD4u2YrMGi+6tTV3XBNutc8C3OpF+cX0jIK25x aVh+YGb7IOyLHNwJSLo+M+qjxcAp07O2tid9n2oG4Ory465qNWsz6dS0paOV9RZZY4W4 zbeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EsO1y26ek3L8AHiSMX/W7MWawNS4z0gSwIst4mA7fZc=; b=n3p1o9ohvHipsazuY4h4eBONUJ9W1xj40NnuzF3YHGQuNAfQPJ8+E7+7G96ypKc/Kt K8OQFVOvevePYa5oCf/dokNzmTqrgoNsMq8SJpc+AOUZg5Nv0aXpdKoDbdCN3mQjYm0X Ni+y7p40ZUSgf7OXYRpCfFO1fLWtCGzW/ZCcF698M7ru9AqD4r8/vFC8e+gsUF3ryc8/ BIAkb7rx/2L4FqRZSb79vI7t+OFH6atJf9fr2/hFox3wmjj+Zih63t6h6O8lyWj09syG YSmU/zUDrG5/+krjkoy5XVOqGmuOcy7DKe6ATnQNmJKbQru1W+0yJiI3fab5yIrGwP+/ OIaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxyteW1RGLfQkllHChHBrFZrpwa7GUj4G11qXCahuO1AqGOULlA8l2 xFG9ITyIH/6HqjUt27Gqg0OwT9WeZC+JtN8301j7kw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBos9kn6SysI0nNtxI16Y1HNoWXoeo5lorn8THcCXeupCtKx4WDmU7AJT1b8frEO57Lvz0m/V+GlVZ5gryDgWPXI= X-Received: by 10.46.41.93 with SMTP id u90mr6517924lje.35.1516298650806; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:04:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.84.65 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:03:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Erick Erickson Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:03:30 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1 To: java-user Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Robert: Ah, right. I keep confusing my gmail lists "lucene dev" and "lucene list".... Siiigggghhhhh. On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Adrien Grand wrote: > If you have sparse data, I would have expected index time to *decrease*, > not increase. > > Can you enable the IW info stream and share flush + merge times to see > where indexing time goes? > > If you can run with a profiler, this might also give useful information. > > Le jeu. 18 janv. 2018 =C3=A0 11:23, Rob Audenaerde a > =C3=A9crit : > >> Hi all, >> >> We recently upgraded from Lucene 6.6 to 7.1. We see a significant drop = in >> indexing performace. >> >> We have a-typical use of Lucene, as we (also) index some database tables >> and add all the values as AssociatedFacetFields as well. This allows us = to >> create pivot tables on search results really fast. >> >> These tables have some overlapping columns, but also disjoint ones. >> >> We anticipated a decrease in index size because of the sparse docvalues.= We >> see this happening, with decreases to ~50%-80% of the original index siz= e. >> But we did not expect an drop in indexing performance (client systems >> indexing time increased with +50% to +250%). >> >> (Our indexing-speed used to be mainly bound by the speed the Taxonomy co= uld >> deliver new ordinals for new values, currently we are investigating if t= his >> is still the case, will report later when a profiler run has been done) >> >> Does anyone know if this increase in indexing time is to be expected as >> result of the sparse docvalues change? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rob Audenaerde >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org