I haven't tried compression either. I know there was some talk a while ago about deprecating, but that hasn't happened. The current implementation yields the highest level of compression. You might find better results by compressing in your application and storing as a binary field, thus giving you more control over CPU used. This is our current recommendation for dealing w/ compression.

If you are not actually displaying that field, you should look into the FieldSelector API (via IndexReader). It allows you to lazily load fields or skip them all together and can yield a pretty significant savings when it comes to loading documents. FieldSelector is available in 2.1.

-Grant

On May 17, 2007, at 4:01 AM, Paul Elschot wrote:

On Thursday 17 May 2007 08:10, Andreas Guther wrote:
I am currently exploring how to solve performance problems I encounter with
Lucene document reads.

We have amongst other fields one field (default) storing all searchable fields. This field can become of considerable size since we are indexing
documents and  store the content for display within results.

I noticed that the read can be very expensive. I wonder now if it would make sense to add this field as Field.Store.Compress to the index. Can someone tell me if this would speed up the document read or if this is
something only interesting for saving space.

I have not tried the compression yet, but in my experience a good way
to reduce the costs of document reads from a disk is by reading them
in document number order whenever possible. In this way one saves
on the disk head seeks.
Compression should actually help reducing the costs of disk head seeks
even more.

Regards,
Paul Elschot

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
Center for Natural Language Processing
http://www.cnlp.org/tech/lucene.asp

Read the Lucene Java FAQ at http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-lucene/ LuceneFAQ



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to