Ray, The 135 qps rate was using the standard FSDirectory in 1.9.
Peter On 1/26/06, Ray Tsang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Paul, > > Thanks for the advice! But for the 100+queries/sec on a 32-bit > platfrom, did you end up applying other patches? or use different > FSDirectory implementations? > > Thanks! > > ray, > > On 1/27/06, Peter Keegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ray, > > > > The short answer is that you can make Lucene blazingly fast by using > advice > > and design principles mentioned in this forum and of course reading > 'Lucene > > in Action'. For example, use a 'content' field for searching all fields > (vs > > mutli-field search), put all your stored data in one field, understand > the > > cost of numeric search and sorting. On the platform side, go multi-CPU > and > > of course 64-bit if possible :) > > > > Also, I would venture to guess that a lot of search bottlenecks have > nothing > > to do with Lucene, but rather in the infrastructure around it. For > example, > > how does your client interface to the search engine? My results use a > plain > > socket interface between client and server (one connection for queries, > > another for results), using a simple query/results data format. > Introducing > > other web infrastructures invites degradation in performance, too. > > > > I've a bit of experience with search engines, but I'm obviously still > > learning thanks to this group. > > > > Peter > > > > On 1/26/06, Ray Tsang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > Wow, the speed up in impressive! But may I ask what did you do to > > > achieve 135 queries/sec prior to the JVM swich? > > > > > > ray, > > > > > > On 1/27/06, Peter Keegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Correction: make that 285 qps :) > > > > > > > > On 1/26/06, Peter Keegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I tried the AMD64-bit JVM from Sun and with MMapDirectory and I'm > now > > > > > getting 250 queries/sec and excellent cpu utilization (equal > > > concurrency on > > > > > all cpus)!! Yonik, thanks for the pointer to the 64-bit jvm. I > wasn't > > > aware > > > > > of it. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks all very much. > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 1/26/06, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug Cutting wrote: > > > > > > > A 64-bit JVM with NioDirectory would really be optimal for > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops. I meant MMapDirectory, not NioDirectory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
