Thanks for bringing closure!
Mike
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
> Hi list!
>
> I'm forwarding as somehow I did not put the list in the CC but the
> answer I think is noteworthy, so here it is. Please remember to use
> StringBuffer before blaming lucene ;-)
>
> Actual t
Hi list!
I'm forwarding as somehow I did not put the list in the CC but the
answer I think is noteworthy, so here it is. Please remember to use
StringBuffer before blaming lucene ;-)
Actual time consumed by lucene is now ~130 minutes as opposed to 20
hours which is neat. I can do much more passes
Hi Michael,
Thanks a lot for a hint. I'll test it out in a few hours and get back
to you and/or the list.
best,
Mateusz
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Michael
McCandless wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
>
>> Thanks for a prompt response.
>
> You're welcome!
>
>>
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
> Thanks for a prompt response.
You're welcome!
>> A mergeFactor of 150 is way too high; I'd put that back to 10 and see
>> if the problem persists. Also make sure you're using
>> autoCommit=false, and try the suggestions here:
>>
>> h
Hi Michael
Thanks for a prompt response.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Michael
McCandless wrote:
> This isn't normal.
>
> A mergeFactor of 150 is way too high; I'd put that back to 10 and see
> if the problem persists. Also make sure you're using
> autoCommit=false, and try the suggestions her
This isn't normal.
A mergeFactor of 150 is way too high; I'd put that back to 10 and see
if the problem persists. Also make sure you're using
autoCommit=false, and try the suggestions here:
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ImproveIndexingSpeed
You're sure the JRE's heap size is big enough
