hey, can you share your benchmark and/or tell us a little more about how your data looks like and how you analyze the data. There might be analysis changes that contribute to that?
simon On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 7:56 PM, cischmidt77 <cischmid...@gmail.com> wrote: > I use Lucene/MemoryIndex for a large number of queries against data in a > streaming system. I'm looking to upgrade from v3.5 to 4.x, but it seems > that > using MemoryIndex is roughly 25% slower based on a benchmark I built using > our internal queries and a sample of 1000 documents to run against. I > haven't seen any benchmarks in the mailing list or anyone talking about a > slowdown and am wondering if the classes used in 3.x are contributing to > what I see. Are there any known classes that should not be used with Lucene > 4.x? Perhaps a different QueryParser to make more efficient queries to run > against the MemoryIndex, or Analyzers that shouldn't be used? > > If the MemoryIndex *is* slower now, would moving to a RAMDirectory and > batching queries be a better choice? I've been using MemoryIndex based on > the javadoc description for some time, but need to see better performance > before moving up to 4.x. > > Thanks, > > Chris > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/MemoryIndex-in-Lucene-4-x-tp4077919.html > Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
