[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12538638
]
Ning Li commented on LUCENE-1035:
---------------------------------
> The question is whether such situations are common enough to warrant adding
> this to the core.
Agree.
> A way around that might be to layer it on top of FSDirectory and add it to
> contrib.
I'd be happy to do that. I'll also include the following in the javadoc which
hopefully is a fair assessment:
"When will a buffer pool help:
- When an index is significantly larger than the file system cache, the hit
ratio of a buffer pool is probably low which means insignificant performance
improvement.
- When an index is about the size of the file system cache or smaller, a
buffer pool with good enough hit ratio will help if the IO system calls are the
bottleneck. An example is if you have many "AND" queries which causes a lot
large skips."
> Optional Buffer Pool to Improve Search Performance
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1035
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1035
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Store
> Reporter: Ning Li
> Attachments: LUCENE-1035.patch
>
>
> Index in RAMDirectory provides better performance over that in FSDirectory.
> But many indexes cannot fit in memory or applications cannot afford to
> spend that much memory on index. On the other hand, because of locality,
> a reasonably sized buffer pool may provide good improvement over FSDirectory.
> This issue aims at providing such an optional buffer pool layer. In cases
> where it fits, i.e. a reasonable hit ratio can be achieved, it should provide
> a good improvement over FSDirectory.
--
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]
