Hi Ian, you r right in that if we have 1 index of say 15 Mb there is no prob but i have thousands of such indexes. So the time will add up with the number of such indexes being open simultaneously and parallel indexing.
Arun On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Ian Lea <ian....@gmail.com> wrote: > I make that about 15Mb of data - trivial. What happens if you make > each field 400 chars and index a million or two? If you really have > that few docs, what are you worrying about? > > A doubling of indexing time from 3.0.2 to 4.1 is surprising, but for > 40k docs are we talking about it taking 2 seconds rather than 1? What > happens if ... as above. > > > -- > Ian. > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:20 PM, arun k <arunk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > After hearing a lot about the CompressingStoredFieldsFormat i have done > > some tests to find whether it has benefits for my indexes. > > > > I have around 40 Stored fields of each say 40 chars and have around > 10,000 > > docs in an index. > > > > I have compared the index sizes and creation time for both Lucene 3.0.2 > and > > Lucene 4.1 and i see that Index size has not reduced much (only 1MB or > so) > > and index creation time has in fact doubled. > > > > Does this mean it doesn't work for my scenario or did i miss out > something ? > > > > Thanks, > > Arun > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
