On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Michael Stoppelman <stop...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Jason Rutherglen < > jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Google uses dedicated highlighting servers. Maybe this architecture would >> work for you. >> > > What's your reference? I used to work at Google. > I think creating a separate index/service would be reasonable and it's what I purposed in a previous email on this thread... "One option to get around the changing scoring would be to to run a completely separate index for highlighting (with the overlapping docs you described)." Still do lucene developers think storing the offsets is a bad idea from an index size prospective or some other reason? M > >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Michael Stoppelman <stop...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > My search backends are only able to eek out 13-15 qps even with the >> entire >> > index in memory (this makes it very expensive to scale). According to my >> > YourKit profiler 80% of the program's time ends up in highlighting. With >> > highlighting disabled my backend gets about 45-50 qps (cheaper scaling)! >> > We're using Mark's TokenSources contrib. to make reconstructing of the >> > document quicker. I was contemplating patching the index to store >> offsets >> > for every term (instead of just the ordinal positions) so that I could >> make >> > the highlighting faster (since you would know where you hit in the >> document >> > on the search pass). I saw this thread from 2004: >> > http://www.mail-archive.com/lucene-...@jakarta.apache.org/msg04743.html- >> > which asks about adding offsets to the index but it was decided against >> > because it would make the index too large. I can totally understand >> this; >> > but as machines get more beefy it would probably be nice to make this >> > optional since having 15 qps vs 50qps is quite a trade-off right now. >> Are >> > other folks seeing this? My documents are quite big sometimes up to 300k >> > tokens. Also my document fields are compressed which is also a time sink >> > for >> > the cpu. >> > >> > Please let me know if you need more details, happy to share. >> > >> > Sincerely, >> > M >> > >> > >
