:59pm
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene performance issues..
On Sonntag, 27. Juli 2008, Mazhar Lateef wrote:
We have also tried upgrading the lucene version to 2.3 in hope to
improve performance but the results were quite the opposite. but
from my
research on the internet the Lucene
On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 21:38 +0100, Mazhar Lateef wrote:
> * email searching
> o We are creating very large indexes for emails we are
> processing, the size is upto +150GB for indexes only (not
> including data content), this we thought would improve
> search
o change for a while.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Daniel Naber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 4:59pm
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene performance issues..
>
> On Sonntag, 27. Juli 2008, Mazhar Lateef wrote:
nt: Sunday, July 27, 2008 4:59pm
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene performance issues..
On Sonntag, 27. Juli 2008, Mazhar Lateef wrote:
> We have also tried upgrading the lucene version to 2.3 in hope to
> improve performance but the results were quite the opposite. but fro
On Sonntag, 27. Juli 2008, Mazhar Lateef wrote:
> We have also tried upgrading the lucene version to 2.3 in hope to
> improve performance but the results were quite the opposite. but from my
> research on the internet the Lucene version 2.3 is much faster and
> better so why are we seeing such inc
Your grinder output seems to indicate clearly that your bottleneck is
in your database code, not in lucene. It seems that the threads are
all blocked trying to get a connection from a connection pool. Maybe
you're leaking connections, or maybe you need to increase the size of
the pool.
On 1/3/
Oscar,
Here are some ideas:
- Optimize your index (won't help with synchronization, but will help with
search performance)
- Consider using the non-compound index format (cca 10% faster)
- Wait for 2.3 (soon!) that has some performance improvements (though this
synchronization bit is still there
Thanks v. much for your thoughts, a lot to think about. I'm currently doing
some benchmark tests on typical usage scenarios with lucene. I'm actually
using lucene through its integration with Jackrabbit dms so may not be
easy/possible to use a different search engine anyway. Of course I'd rather
b
Hi Thomas,
Sound like FUD to me. No concrete numbers, and the benchmark they mention
eh, haven't we all seen "funny" benchmarks before? Lucene is used in many
large operations (e.g. Technorati, Simpy) that involve a LOT of indexing and
searching, large indices, etc. I suggest you try bot
thomasg wrote:
Hi, we are currently intending to implement a document storage / search tool
using Jackrabbit and Lucene. We have been approached by a commercial search
and indexing organisation called ISYS who are suggesting the following
problems with using Lucene. We do have a requirement to st
thomasg wrote:
1) By default, Lucene only indexes the first 10,000 words from each
document. When increasing this default out-of-memory errors can occur. This
implies that documents, or large sections thereof, are loaded into memory.
ISYS has a very small memory footprint which is not affected by
11 matches
Mail list logo
