i 2014 22:09
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: search time & number of segments
De Simone, Alessandro [alessandro.desim...@bvdinfo.com] wrote:
> We have stopped optimizing the index because everybody told us it was a bad
> idea.
> It makes sense if you think about it. When
De Simone, Alessandro [alessandro.desim...@bvdinfo.com] wrote:
> We have stopped optimizing the index because everybody told us it was a bad
> idea.
> It makes sense if you think about it. When you reopen the index not all
> segments must be reopened then you have:
> (1) better reload time
>
ig impact on
performance.
-Original Message-
From: Toke Eskildsen [mailto:t...@statsbiblioteket.dk]
Sent: mardi 20 mai 2014 15:46
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: search time & number of segments
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 15:04 +0200, De Simone, Alessandro wrote:
Tok
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 15:04 +0200, De Simone, Alessandro wrote:
Toke:
> > Using the calculator, I must admit that it is puzzling that you have
> 2432 / 143 = 17.001 times the amount of seeks with 16 segments.
>
> Do you have any clue? Is there something I could test?
If your segmented index was
iginal Message-
From: Toke Eskildsen [mailto:t...@statsbiblioteket.dk]
Sent: lundi 19 mai 2014 16:43
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: search time & number of segments
On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 11:54 +0200, De Simone, Alessandro wrote:
[24GB index, 8GB disk cache, only indexed fields]
&
On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 11:54 +0200, De Simone, Alessandro wrote:
[24GB index, 8GB disk cache, only indexed fields]
> The "IO calls" I was referring to is the number of time the
> "BufferedIndexInput.refill()" function is called. So it means that we
> have 16 times more bytes read when there are 16
iginal Message-
From: Toke Eskildsen [mailto:t...@statsbiblioteket.dk]
Sent: samedi 17 mai 2014 20:04
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: search time & number of segments
De Simone, Alessandro [alessandro.desim...@bvdinfo.com] wrote:
> We have a performance issue ever since we stopped optimiz
De Simone, Alessandro [alessandro.desim...@bvdinfo.com] wrote:
> We have a performance issue ever since we stopped optimizing the index. We
> are using Lucene 4.8 (jvm 32bits for searching, 64bits for indexing) on
> Windows 2008R2.
How much RAM does your search machine have?
> For instance, a s
