On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Otis Gospodnetic <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Glen,
>
> Thanks for sharing. Does your benchmarking tool build on top of
> contrib/benchmark? (not sure if that one lets you specify the number of
> concurrent threads -- if it does not, perhaps this is an opportunity to add
> this functionality).
contrib/benchmark's syntax for parallel-execution spawns parallel threads.
I.e. something like
[ Search ] : 20
would run 20 queries in parallel, and this
[ Search ] : 20000 : 5
would run 20,000 queries in parallel, but starting up to 5 new threads per
second.
One more example:
[
{ SearchTrav(20) > : 300
] : 500
Would spawn 500 threads each running 300 queries, where query 20 results are
traversed.
It allows various parallel settings, though not sure it covers exactly what
Glen did.
> I couldn't find info about the index format (compound or not) you used. It
> would be good to see the comparison with high number of threads for the 2
> index formats. It would also be good to see the numbers when the index has
> no deletion and when it has some percentage of docs deleted.
>
>
> Finally, if you end up extending contrib/benchmark, I think just having the
> ability to pump the results of that into a gnuplot script would be nice to
> have.
Yes this would be great!
> I've written a standalone benchmarking tool that did pretty much what
> yours seems to do, but I wrote it for Technorati, so I can't release it. :(
>
> Otis
> --
> Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Glen Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 12:51:41 AM
> > Subject: Concurrent query benchmarks
> >
> > A number of people have asked about query benchmarks.
> >
> > I have posted benchmarks for concurrent query requests for Lucene
> > 2.3.1 on my blog, where I look at 1 - 4096 concurrent requests:
> >
> http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/2008/06/simultaneous-threaded-query-lucene.html
> >
> > I hope you find this useful.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Glen
> >
>
>
>
