Re: IndexWriter.flush performance

2008-12-08 Thread Michael McCandless
IndexWriter.close() does a commit. Otherwise you will (in 3.0) need to do it by hand. Mike Laurent Mimoun wrote: Michael McCandless-2 wrote: So you should use commit sparingly, and, open your IndexWriter with autoCommit=false. Thank you for your respsonse. But I would be estonished

Re: IndexWriter.flush performance

2008-12-08 Thread Laurent Mimoun
Michael McCandless-2 wrote: > > > So you should use commit sparingly, and, open your IndexWriter with > autoCommit=false. > Thank you for your respsonse. But I would be estonished that no code is provided in lucene API to do the job of commiting regularly modifications : do I really hav

Re: IndexWriter.flush performance

2008-12-08 Thread Michael McCandless
Flushing is still done "synchronously" with an addDocument call. The time spent is in proportion to how large the RAM buffer is, and, how fast your IO system accepts writes. So, you'll be happily adding documents, until IW decides a flush is needed, and then it will flush (blocking) usin

Re: IndexWriter.flush performance

2008-12-07 Thread mimounl
Jokin Cuadrado wrote: > > Avery time you flush the index, you are writing a small index to the > disk. Theres a defined value (mergefactor) that decides when it have > to merge all of those small index in a bigger one, so as the index > grown the merges are bigger. > Don't you thing I have to

Re: IndexWriter.flush performance

2008-12-07 Thread Jokin Cuadrado
Avery time you flush the index, you are writing a small index to the disk. Theres a defined value (mergefactor) that decides when it have to merge all of those small index in a bigger one, so as the index grown the merges are bigger. First you merge 10 indexes of 1 document, then 10 indexes of 10