e a transaction log in parallel to
> > indexing,
> > >> so they commit very seldom. If the system crashes, the changes are
> > replayed
> > >> from tranlog since last commit.
> > >>
> > >> Uwe
> > >>
> > >>
gt; >>
> >> -
> >> Uwe Schindler
> >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
> >> http://www.thetaphi.de
> >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> >>
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Rob Audenaerde [mailto:rob.audenae...@gmail.c
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Rob Audenaerde [mailto:rob.audenae...@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 11:29 AM
>> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>> > Subject: Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1
>> >
>> >
we
>
> -
> Uwe Schindler
> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen
> http://www.thetaphi.de
> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Audenaerde [mailto:rob.audenae...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 11:29 AM
> > To
28357 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de
> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Audenaerde [mailto:rob.audenae...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 11:29 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1
>
> H
Hi all,
Some follow up (sorry for the delay).
We built a benchmark in our application, and profiled it (on a smallish
data set). What we currently see in the profiler is that in Lucene 7.1 the
calls to `commit()` take much longer.
The self-time committing in 6.6: 3,215 ms
The self-time committin
Robert:
Ah, right. I keep confusing my gmail lists
"lucene dev"
and
"lucene list"
Siiih.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Adrien Grand wrote:
> If you have sparse data, I would have expected index time to *decrease*,
> not increase.
>
> Can you enable the IW info stream and share
If you have sparse data, I would have expected index time to *decrease*,
not increase.
Can you enable the IW info stream and share flush + merge times to see
where indexing time goes?
If you can run with a profiler, this might also give useful information.
Le jeu. 18 janv. 2018 à 11:23, Rob Aude
Erick I don't think solr was mentioned here.
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> My first question is always "are you running the Solr CPUs flat out?".
> My guess in this case is that the indexing client is the same and the
> problem is in Solr, but it's worth checking whethe
My first question is always "are you running the Solr CPUs flat out?".
My guess in this case is that the indexing client is the same and the
problem is in Solr, but it's worth checking whether the clients are
just somehow not delivering docs as fast as they were before.
My suspicion is that the in
Hi all,
We recently upgraded from Lucene 6.6 to 7.1. We see a significant drop in
indexing performace.
We have a-typical use of Lucene, as we (also) index some database tables
and add all the values as AssociatedFacetFields as well. This allows us to
create pivot tables on search results really
11 matches
Mail list logo
