Nice! An 8 core machine with a test ready to go!

How about trying the read only mode that was added to 2.4 on your IndexReader?

And if you you are on unix and could try trunk and use the new NIOFSDirectory implementation...that would be awesome.

Those two additions are our current hope for what your seeing...would be nice to know if we need to try for more (or if we need to petition the smart people that work on that stuff to try for more ;) ).

- Mark

Dmitri Bichko wrote:
Hi,

I'm pretty new to Lucene, so please bear with me if this has been
covered before.

The wiki suggests sharing a single IndexSearcher between threads for
best performance
(http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ImproveSearchingSpeed).  I've
tested running the same set of queries with: multiple threads sharing
the same searcher, with a separate searcher for each thread, both
shared/private with a RAMDirectory in-memory index, and (just for fun)
in multiple JVMs running concurrently (the results are in milliseconds
to complete the whole job):

threads  multi-jvm  shared  per-thread  ram-shared  ram-thread
      1      72997   70883       72573       60308       60012
      2      33147   48762       35973       25498       25734
      4      16229   46828       21267       13127       27164
      6      13088   47240       14028        9858       29917
      8       9775   47020       10983        8948       10440
     10       8721   50132       11334        9587       11355
     12       7290   49002       11798        9832
     16       9365   47099       12338       11296

The shared searcher indeed behaves better with a ram-based index, but
what's going on with the disk-based one?  It's basically not scaling
beyond two threads. Am I just doing something completely wrong here?

The test consists of about 1,500 Boolean OR queries with 1-10
PhraseQueries each, with 1-20 Terms per PhraseQuery.  I'm using a
HitCollector to count the hits, so I'm not retrieving any results.
The index is about 5GB and 20 million documents.

This is running on a 8 x quad-core Opteron machine with plenty of RAM to spare.

Any idea why I would see this behaviour?

Thanks,
Dmitri

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]

Reply via email to