Have you done any profiling of your application yet to identify
bottlenecks (i.e. are you sure it is Lucene)? Without some
profiling, you really will just be guessing. Also, search this and
the dev. list for performance, as there have been many lengthy
discussions in the past on optimizations that may give you some
ideas. Is there any way you can make it so you don't spawn extra
searches?
Also, how are you handling the newsdate field? Range Query vs. Range
Filter.
Do you have any fields in your documents that are large, stored
fields? Lazy loading and/or the field selector may help there.
Search this list for info or the dev list.
How are you creating your queries? Is there a lot of analysis
involved?Î
Of course, there always comes a time when you need to look at
distributing the load, but I am not sure if you are there yet, as I
seem to recall people being able to handle 10gb w/o too much problem
on a machine of that size, but I could be wrong.
-Grant
On Dec 8, 2006, at 1:10 AM, Chun Wei Ho wrote:
Hi,
We run a search engine based on Lucene 1.9.1 / Nutch 0.7.2. Our index
has approximately 2 million documents and the physical size of it is
about 10 GB. We run it as a tomcat web application on a Fedora Core 4
server with duo Xeon 3.2GHz processors and 4GB RAM.
We receive about 46500 web search requests a day (ranging from 50-300
requests per 5 minutes across the day). Each web search request could
spawn about one to three actual Lucene searches. Our average response
time (calculated from the server side - and so excludes network
latency), is about 2 seconds.
Does this timing of 2 seconds appear plausible for Lucene, based on
the machine specifications above.
Our index is slightly more complex (with multiple fields like title,
location, site, content). For example, a search for "Linux and Lucene"
related entries in "Australia" might result in lucene searches for:
((title:linux^1.0 title:lucene^1.0)^4.0)
+((
+(title:linux^5.0 location:linux^1.5 content:linux^1.0)
+(title:lucene^5.0 location:lucene^1.5 content:lucene^1.0))
((+(+content:linux +content:lucene)) +(site:contentsite1
site:contentsite2 site:contentsite3 site:contentsite4
site:contentsite5 site:contentsite6 site:contentsite7)))^0.01))
+location:australia)
+newsdate:[20061107 TO 20061208]
+region:au)
-jobsite:badsite1 -region:badregion1 -jobsite:badsite2
-jobsite:badsite3 -jobsite:badsite4
Does anyone have ideas or could point us to resources that would allow
us to improve this performance? 2 seconds response added with network
latency gives an impression of "slowness" of our site that we are
trying to reduce.
Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.grantingersoll.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
