I was referring to *RAMDirectory*.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You do not want to store 30 G of data in the JVM heap, no matter what library does this. > MMapDirectory does not store data in the JVM heap. It lets the > operating system manage the disk buffer space. Even if the JVM says "I > have 30G of memory space", it really does not. It only has address > space allocated by the OS but no memory. > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-07-18 at 17:50 +0200, Dragon Fly wrote: >>> If I want to improve performance, which of the following is better and why? >>> >>> 1. Buy a machine with a lot of RAM and use a RAMDirectory for the index. >> >> As others has pointed out, MMapDirectory should work better than >> RAMDirectory. I am sure it will work fine with a relative small index >> such as yours. However, it does not scale that well with index size. >> >>> 2. Put the index on a solid state drive. >> >> Why anyone buys computers without SSD's is a mystery to me. Use SSDs for >> the small low-latency stuff and a secondary spinning drive for the large >> slow stuff. Nowadays, a 30GB index (or 100GB for that matter) falls into >> the small low-latency bucket. SSDs speeds up almost everything, saves >> RAM and spares a lot of work hours optimizing I/O-speed. >> >> Regards, >> Toke Eskildsen >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > > > > -- > Lance Norskog > goks...@gmail.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org >
