[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2840?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12979276#action_12979276
]
Earwin Burrfoot commented on LUCENE-2840:
-----------------------------------------
bq. But doesn't that mean that an app w/ rare queries but each query is massive
fails to use all available concurrency?
Yes. But that's not my case. And likely not someone else's.
I think if you want to be super-generic, it's better to defer exact threading
to the user, instead of doing a one-size-fits-all solution. Else you risk
conjuring another ConcurrentMergeScheduler.
While we're at it, we can throw in some sample implementation, which can
satisfy some of the users, but not everyone.
> Multi-Threading in IndexSearcher (after removal of MultiSearcher and
> ParallelMultiSearcher)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2840
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2840
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Search
> Reporter: Uwe Schindler
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 4.0
>
>
> Spin-off from parent issue:
> {quote}
> We should discuss about how many threads should be spawned. If you have an
> index with many segments, even small ones, I think only the larger segments
> should be separate threads, all others should be handled sequentially. So
> maybe add a maxThreads cound, then sort the IndexReaders by maxDoc and then
> only spawn maxThreads-1 threads for the bigger readers and then one
> additional thread for the rest?
> {quote}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
