[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-888?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12499199
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-888:
-------------------------------------------
> I tested and reviewed your patch. It looks good and all tests pass!
Thanks!
> - Should we increase the buffer size for CompoundFileReader to 4KB
> not only for the merge mode but also for the normal read mode?
I'm a little nervous about that: I don't know the impact it will have
on searching, especially queries that heavily use skipping?
Hmmm, actually, a CSIndexInput potentially goes through 2 buffers when
it does a read -- its own (since each CSIndexInput subclasses from
BufferedIndexInput) and then the main stream of the
CompoundFileReader. It seems like we shouldn't do this? We should
not do a double copy.
It almost seems like the double copy would not occur becaase
readBytes() has logic to read directly from the underlying stream if
the sizes is >= bufferSize. However, I see at least one case during
merging where this logic doesn't kick in (and we do a double buffer
copy) because the buffers become "skewed". I will open a separate
issue for this; I think we should fix it and gain some more
performance.
> In BufferedIndexInput.setBufferSize() a new buffer should only be
> allocated if the new size is different from the previous buffer
> size.
Ahh, good. Will do.
> Improve indexing performance by increasing internal buffer sizes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-888
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-888
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Index
> Affects Versions: 2.1
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Assigned To: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-888.patch
>
>
> In working on LUCENE-843, I noticed that two buffer sizes have a
> substantial impact on overall indexing performance.
> First is BufferedIndexOutput.BUFFER_SIZE (also used by
> BufferedIndexInput). Second is CompoundFileWriter's buffer used to
> actually build the compound file. Both are now 1 KB (1024 bytes).
> I ran the same indexing test I'm using for LUCENE-843. I'm indexing
> ~5,500 byte plain text docs derived from the Europarl corpus
> (English). I index 200,000 docs with compound file enabled and term
> vector positions & offsets stored plus stored fields. I flush
> documents at 16 MB RAM usage, and I set maxBufferedDocs carefully to
> not hit LUCENE-845. The resulting index is 1.7 GB. The index is not
> optimized in the end and I left mergeFactor @ 10.
> I ran the tests on a quad-core OS X 10 machine with 4-drive RAID 0 IO
> system.
> At 1 KB (current Lucene trunk) it takes 622 sec to build the index; if
> I increase both buffers to 8 KB it takes 554 sec to build the index,
> which is an 11% overall gain!
> I will run more tests to see if there is a natural knee in the curve
> (buffer size above which we don't really gain much more performance).
> I'm guessing we should leave BufferedIndexInput's default BUFFER_SIZE
> at 1024, at least for now. During searching there can be quite a few
> of this class instantiated, and likely a larger buffer size for the
> freq/prox streams could actually hurt search performance for those
> searches that use skipping.
> The CompoundFileWriter buffer is created only briefly, so I think we
> can use a fairly large (32 KB?) buffer there. And there should not be
> too many BufferedIndexOutputs alive at once so I think a large-ish
> buffer (16 KB?) should be OK.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
