----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Elschot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. OG: Does this really help in a multi-user environment where there are multiple parallel queries hitting the index and reading data from all over the index and the disk? They will all share the same disk head, so the head will still have to jump around to service all these requests, even if each request is being careful to read documents in docId order, no? Otis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
