Hi, Andy, Thanks for your tips. I am trying to get a more thorough understanding why this would be better.
It seems to me that the performance gain and memory reduction is because, you don't need to store all the lucene matched ids in memory. Is that right? Thanks, Jian So is it that the performance gain and memory reduction comes from the fact On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:22:39 -0800, Andy Goodell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do these kinds of queries all the time. I found that the fastest > performance for my collections (millions of documents) came from > subclassing Filter using the set of primary keys from the database to > make the Filter, and then doing the query with the > Searcher.search(query,filter) interface. I was previously using the > in memory merge, but the memory requirements were crashing the JVM > when we had a lot of simultaneous users. > > - andy g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
