t: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:36 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Improving search performance for forum search
Hi List,
I'm working on a search engine for our forum using Lucene 4. Since its a
brand new search engine, I can change it as I see fit.
We have about 1.5M topics
remen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
-Original Message-
From: Arjen van der Meijden [mailto:acmmail...@tweakers.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:36 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Improving search performance for forum search
Hi List,
I'm working on a search
://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Arjen van der Meijden [mailto:acmmail...@tweakers.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:36 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Improving search performance for forum search
>
> Hi L
Hi List,
I'm working on a search engine for our forum using Lucene 4. Since its a
brand new search engine, I can change it as I see fit.
We have about 1.5M topics in the various subforums and on average 20
replies to each topic (i.e. about 33M in total).
For now, I've opted to index all repli
then conduct a search and return the next best 20
results, and
so on. Is this possible using Lucene, and if so, how?
Just wondering.
Thanks to all who respond.
Sincerely;
Fayyaz
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Improving-search-performance-with-the-results-returned
-search-performance-with-the-results-returned-tp17996441p17996441.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
t seems to be so:
http://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?t=987104
--Rakesh S
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Improving search performance
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 02:22:19 -0400
Hi Rakesh,
I've spend the afternoon and the evening playing around your
s not possible then probably I will have to use Lucene APIs directly.
Atleast from this thread it seems to be so:
http://forum.hibernate.org/viewtopic.php?t=987104
--Rakesh S
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Improving search performance
> Date:
ing else that I should be looking into to further
improve the performance?
--Rakesh S
Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 20:24:03 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Improving search performance
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Hi Emmanuel,
Because there are some synchronized methods, like the on
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 6:41:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: Improving search performance
> >
> > Hi
> > Hibernate Search does not pool the Searcher but pools the underlying
> > IndexReader(s).
/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: Emmanuel Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 6:41:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Improving search performance
>
> Hi
> Hibernate Search does not pool the Search
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Emmanuel Bernard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From what i've seen, a Searcher is stateless and all the
> state is kept in the Readers. so this essentially is equivalent to reusing
> the searcher.
You're right, for a normal IndexSearcher, caching the Searcher is
pre
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:16:13 PM
Subject: Improving search performance
Hi all,
I have index of size 85MB. My query looks as follows:
+(t:boss* d:boss* dd:boss* tg:boss*) +st:act +ntid:0 +cid:1 +dr:
[20080410 TO
2008
:[20080410 TO 20081010] +rT:[002 TO 005]
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh S
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:22:27 -0700
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Improving search performance
> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > Some quick feedback.
-- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Rakesh Shete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:16:13 PM
> > Subject: Improving search performance
> >
>
single searcher?
-Glen
>
> Otis
> --
> Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
>
>
> - Original Message
>> From: Rakesh Shete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; java-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 20
^5 dd:boss*^3 tg:boss*^2) +st:act +ntid:0 +cid:1
+dr:[20080410 TO 20081010] +rT:[002 TO 005]
Thanks,
Rakesh S
> Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:22:27 -0700
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Improving search performance
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>
> Some quick f
e.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:16:13 PM
> Subject: Improving search performance
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have index of size 85MB. My query looks as follows:
>
> +(t:boss* d:boss* dd:boss* tg:boss*) +st:act +ntid:0 +cid:1 +dr:[20080410 TO
> 20081010] +rT:[002 TO 005]
Hi all,
I have index of size 85MB. My query looks as follows:
+(t:boss* d:boss* dd:boss* tg:boss*) +st:act +ntid:0 +cid:1 +dr:[20080410 TO
20081010] +rT:[002 TO 005]
All the fields used in the query are stored in the indexes (Indexed & Stored)
The query response time for me is around 30 secon
t;
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:31:49 PM
Subject: Improving Search Performance on Large Indexes
Hello,
Currently we are attempting to optimize the search time against an index
that is 26 GB in size (~35 million docs) and I was wondering what
experiences others have had in
, 2007 1:09 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Improving Search Performance on Large Indexes
Hi Scott,
I met the same situation as you(index 100M documents). If the computer
has only one CPU and one disk, ParallelMultiSearcher is slower than
MultiSearcher.
I wrote an email "Wh
. . . . . .
> Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share
>
> - Original Message
> From: Scott Sellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:31:49 PM
> Subject: Improving Search Performance on
a-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:31:49 PM
Subject: Improving Search Performance on Large Indexes
Hello,
Currently we are attempting to optimize the search time against an index
that is 26 GB in size (~35 million docs) and I was wondering what
experiences others have had in s
Hello,
Currently we are attempting to optimize the search time against an index
that is 26 GB in size (~35 million docs) and I was wondering what
experiences others have had in similar attempts. Simple searches
against the index are still fast even at 26GB, but the problem is our
application
al Message-
From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:03 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Improving search performance
I am not sure why you are getting all 60k docs at a time. If you use
the Hits object, it caches the top 50 or so, but doesn&
I am not sure why you are getting all 60k docs at a time. If you use
the Hits object, it caches the top 50 or so, but doesn't retrieve all
the documents at once.
Also, what are the size of your fields and how many fields do you have
per document?
Have you done any profiling to find the bott
Hi,
I am looking for ways to improve the performance of lucene search in our
app. Lucene performance is visibly slow when there are a lot of
documents to be returned (performance almost seems directly proportional
to the number of documents returned by Searcher). However, we show 20
results per pa
27 matches
Mail list logo
