Thanks for the input.
I am not using Solr.
Also, my index has a fixed size, I am not going to update it.
-Original Message-
From: googoo [mailto:liu...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 July 2012 15:21
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: In memory Lucene configuration
Doron,
To verify
essage-
> From: Doron Yaacoby [mailto:dor...@gingersoftware.com]
> Sent: 16 July 2012 09:43
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: In memory Lucene configuration
>
> I haven't tried that yet, but it's an option. The reason I'm waiting on this
>
Hi,
just to clarify:
> In additional, i don't think load whole index to memory is good idea.
Since the
> index size will always increase.
> For me, i change lucene code to disable MMapDirectory, since the index
size is
> bigger and bigger.
> And MMapDirectory will call something like c++ share me
> From: Doron Yaacoby [mailto:dor...@gingersoftware.com]
> Sent: 16 July 2012 09:43
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: In memory Lucene configuration
>
> I haven't tried that yet, but it's an option. The reason I'm waiting on this
> is that I a
ze
is bigger and bigger.
And MMapDirectory will call something like c++ share memory to load whole
index to ram.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/In-memory-Lucene-configuration-tp3995075p3995697.html
Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabbl
@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: In memory Lucene configuration
I haven't tried that yet, but it's an option. The reason I'm waiting on this is
that I am expecting many concurrent requests to my application anyway, so
having multiple search threads per request might not be the best idea
08:26
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: In memory Lucene configuration
>
> Have you tried sharding your data? Since you have a fast multi-core box, why
> not split your indices N-ways, say the smaller one into 4, and the larger
> into 8. Then you can have a pool of dedi
Vitaly Funstein [mailto:vfunst...@gmail.com]
Sent: 16 July 2012 08:26
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: In memory Lucene configuration
Have you tried sharding your data? Since you have a fast multi-core box, why
not split your indices N-ways, say the smaller one into 4, and the larger into
]
Sent: 15 July 2012 13:40
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org; simon.willna...@gmail.com
Subject: RE: In memory Lucene configuration
Thanks for the quick input!
I ran a few more tests with your suggested configuration (-Xmx1G -Xms1G with
MMapDirectory). At the third time I ran the same test I fi
t; Sent: 15 July 2012 11:56
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: In memory Lucene configuration
>
> hey there,
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Doron Yaacoby
> wrote:
>> Hi, I have the following situation:
>>
>> I have two pretty large indic
;t mention before that I'm using Lucene 3.5 and Java 1.7.
-Original Message-
From: Simon Willnauer [mailto:simon.willna...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 July 2012 11:56
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: In memory Lucene configuration
hey there,
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Doron
hey there,
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Doron Yaacoby
wrote:
> Hi, I have the following situation:
>
> I have two pretty large indices. One consists of about 1 billion documents
> (takes ~6GB on disk) and the other has about 2 billion documents (~10GB on
> disk). The documents are very sho
Hi, I have the following situation:
I have two pretty large indices. One consists of about 1 billion documents
(takes ~6GB on disk) and the other has about 2 billion documents (~10GB on
disk). The documents are very short (4-5 terms each in the text field, and one
numeric field with a long valu
13 matches
Mail list logo
