Optimize is rarely useful. It can give some performance gains, but is quite an
expensive operation. Pre Solr 7.5, optimizing had some behaviors that weren’t
obvious, see:
https://lucidworks.com/2017/10/13/segment-merging-deleted-documents-optimize-may-bad/
Post 7.5, the behavior has changed.
I
: My understanding is that an optimized index gives the best search
there is an inherent inconsistency in your question -- yo usay you
optimize your index before using it becuase you heard thta makes searches
faster, but in your orriginal question you said...
> I'd like to shorten the time it
I'll run some tests. Thank you.
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Index optimization ...
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:12:28 -0400
>
> What version of Lucene are you using? What is your current
> mergeFactor? Lowering this (mi
it make the indexing slower (which I'm OK with)
but the optimization faster? Thank you.
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:32:46 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Index optimization ...
John Griffin:
Use IndexWriter.setRAMBufferSizeMB(double mb) and
ge factor.
>
>> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:03:37 +0100
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Index optimization ...
>>
>> OK, but why do you need to optimize before every swap? Have you tried
>> with less frequent op
t;new" inactive upto speed
to compensate for the documents it missed while the "old" Inactive index got
upated?
Just curious,
Anand
-Original Message-
From: Dragon Fly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:00:25
To:
Subject: RE: Index optimization ...
I have t
Jul 2008 15:03:37 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Index optimization ...
>
> OK, but why do you need to optimize before every swap? Have you tried
> with less frequent optimizes?
>
> --
> Ian.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul
+0100
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Index optimization ...
>>
>> Why do you run an optimize every 4 hours?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ian.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dragon Fly &l
re the inactive copy is made active.
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:54:03 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Index optimization ...
>
> Why do you run an optimize every 4 hours?
>
>
> --
> Ian.
>
>
> On Wed, Ju
ctor, would it make the indexing slower
> (which I'm OK with) but the optimization faster? Thank you.
>
>> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 08:32:46 +0200
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Index optimization ...
>>
>>
PROTECTED]
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Index optimization ...
>
> John Griffin:
> > Use IndexWriter.setRAMBufferSizeMB(double mb) and you won't have to
> > sacrifice anything. It defaults to 16.0 MB so depending on the size of your
> > ind
John Griffin:
> Use IndexWriter.setRAMBufferSizeMB(double mb) and you won't have to
> sacrifice anything. It defaults to 16.0 MB so depending on the size of your
> index you may want to make it larger. Do some testing at various values to
> see where the sweet spot is.
>
Also, have a look at
htt
Try IndexWriter.optimize(int maxNumSegments)
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Dragon Fly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I'd like to shorten the time it takes to optimize my index and am willing
> to sacrifice search and indexing performance. Which parameters (e.g. merge
> factor) should I change?
Use IndexWriter.setRAMBufferSizeMB(double mb) and you won't have to
sacrifice anything. It defaults to 16.0 MB so depending on the size of your
index you may want to make it larger. Do some testing at various values to
see where the sweet spot is.
John G.
-Original Message-
From: Dragon
14 matches
Mail list logo
