WHOOPS. First sentence was, until just before I clicked 'send',
"Hardware has .5T of RAM. Index is relatively small (20g) ..." On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Benson Margulies <ben...@basistech.com> wrote: > Robert, > > Let me lay out the scenario. > > Hardware has .5T of Index is relatively small. Application profiling > shows a significant amount of time spent codec-ing. > > Options as I see them: > > 1. Use DPF complete with the irritation of having to have this > spurious codec name in the on-disk format that has nothing to do with > the on-disk format. > 2. 'Officially' use the standard codec, and then use something like > AOP to intercept and encapsulate it with the DPF or something else > like it -- essentially, a do-it-myself alternative to convincing the > community here that this is a use case worthy of support. > 3. Find some way to move a significant amount of the data in question > out of Lucene altogether into something else which fits nicely > together with filling memory with a cache so that the amount of > codeccing drops below the threshold of interest. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
