I'm well aware of the trade offs. But if you were aware of the large amounts of data that this system should be able to search you woldn't propose the usage of a database. Since I have an separate alert service for immediatly alerts up and running i may be able to do trade offs with the data availability timings, and hold the indexsearcher open for a longer period. But still. The memory is the problem. I mean how much memory would the fieldcache take for 500 Millon newsletter articles? Probably a lot, ok the system is scaled out over different machines so in reality each machine won't have 500 Million docs but maybe around 100Million. So i'm still interesting in changing the relevance. Any ideas? / Marcus
________________________________ Från: Yonik Seeley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Skickat: to 2006-05-18 17:43 Till: java-user@lucene.apache.org Ämne: Re: Sort problematics On 5/18/06, Marcus Falck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But since my "real" index will be around 2TB in size I don't think sorting is > the right way to go? I pretty sure I will have to modify the ranking. They are both sorts, and they both use a priority queue. The differences shouldn't be that great after the FieldCache is populated. The biggest downside to the FieldCache is the memory usage, not the CPU. > And yes the data must be instantly available. For each update? If so, use a database - Lucene made different tradeoffs in it's design. -Yonik http://incubator.apache.org/solr Solr, the open-source Lucene search server --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
