Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-02-03 Thread ajay_garg
gt; -Yonik > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Query-in-Lucene-2.3.0-tp151

Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-02-03 Thread Yonik Seeley
On Feb 3, 2008 11:44 AM, ajay_garg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Firstly, in the 2.3 optimizations, point 4 says :: > " 4. LUCENE-959: Remove synchronization in Document (yonik)". > > Well, what does that mean, since it has already been assured that multiple > adds, deletes, updates CAN be done by m

Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-02-03 Thread ajay_garg
;>>>> has a single write.lock, this means that sitting on the CPU, we >>>>>> observe >>>>>> that >>>>>> at a particular instant, only a single thread is using the CPU, >>>>> >>>>> The write.lock is to protect

Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-01-31 Thread Michael McCandless
le CPUs. -Yonik --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Query-in- Lucene-2.3.0-tp15175141p15198783.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive

Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-01-31 Thread ajay_garg
r instances, >>> *not* against other threads. >>> Using multiple threads on a single IndexWriter should utilize >>> multiple >>> CPUs. >>> >>> -Yonik >>> >>> --

Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-01-31 Thread Michael McCandless
eads on a single IndexWriter should utilize multiple CPUs. -Yonik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Query-i

Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-01-30 Thread ajay_garg
ainst other threads. > Using multiple threads on a single IndexWriter should utilize multiple > CPUs. > > -Yonik > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail

Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-01-30 Thread Yonik Seeley
On Jan 30, 2008 10:59 PM, ajay_garg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks Mike for your directions. > > Yes, I am in fact using a single computer for my application, and your > saying that in this case, multiple threads with a single IndexWriter wll > give a better performance. Hmmm. I just wonder

Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-01-30 Thread ajay_garg
memory at our disposal, before we are sure that there >> will be no >> "outOfMemoryException" ? If >> that is the case, does that also mean that if we are >> working with a >> single main thread only, and >> providing anything l

Re: Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-01-30 Thread Michael McCandless
ry at our disposal, before we are sure that there will be no "outOfMemoryException" ? If that is the case, does that also mean that if we are working with a single main thread only, and providing anything less than 16MB of memory to the JVM, then the exception would

Query in Lucene 2.3.0

2008-01-29 Thread ajay_garg
less than 16MB of memory to the JVM, then the exception would always occur ? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Query-in-Lucene-2.3.0-tp15175141p15175141.html Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.