Eric Jain wrote:
I'll rerun the indexing
procedure with the old version overnight, just to be sure.
Just to confirm: There no longer seems to be any difference in indexing
performance between the nightly build and 1.4.3.
-
T
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Regarding performance fix - if you can be more precise (is it really
just more or less or is it as good as before), that would be great
for those of us itching to use 1.9.
To be more precise: The patch reduced the time required to build one large
index from 13 to 11 ho
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Regarding performance fix - if you can be more precise (is it really
> just more or less or is it as good as before), that would be great
> for those of us itching to use 1.9.
Yes, I can confirm that performance differs by no more than 3.1 fraggles.
;-)
--
g
Sent: Tue 28 Feb 2006 05:54:05 AM EST
Subject: Re: Indexing performance with Lucene 1.9
Daniel Naber wrote:
> A fix has now been committed to trunk in SVN, it should be part of the next
> 1.9 release.
Performance seems to have recovered, more or
Daniel Naber wrote:
A fix has now been committed to trunk in SVN, it should be part of the next
1.9 release.
Performance seems to have recovered, more or less, thanks!
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additiona
On Samstag 25 Februar 2006 14:20, Eric Jain wrote:
> After upgrading to Lucene 1.9, an index that used to take about 9h to
> build now requires 13h. Any one else notice a decrease in performance?
A fix has now been committed to trunk in SVN, it should be part of the next
1.9 release.
Regards
D
On Samstag 25 Februar 2006 14:20, Eric Jain wrote:
> After upgrading to Lucene 1.9, an index that used to take about 9h to
> build now requires 13h. Any one else notice a decrease in performance?
Yes, I can reproduce this with the Lucene demo on a much smaller index of
2000 documents. It (partly
