On 7/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fair enough. > I'm using Lucene 2.1.0 out-of-the-box using demo class IndexFile. > I think it uses StandardAnalyzer. I don't think there is any parser apart > text. > > 4H10 is the total duration of the crawl. I'm using the simple 'bin/nutch > crawl ...' command. > > crawldb is 1.7 MB, linkdb is 2.2 Mb, segments is 38 MB, index and indexes are > both 13 MB > As I said there are 134000 documents in less than 100 folders. > > Lucene index folder is 6.7 MB
Thanks for the details. Could you also measure how much time individual jobs (fetch, parse, updatedb, invertlinks, index) are taking? It is possible that you are spending most of the time during fetching (depending on how actually you are fetching the documents: are you pulling them from a local file system or from the web server?). > > There is probably a lot of extra IO compared too Lucene. But it seems strange > that managing the database of links add so much an overhead to doing the > actual job of indexing and loading the file in memory. I am fairly sure that I/O won't be a huge burden for your case (because sum of the size of all your structures is less than 50 MB). I was thinking that perhaps you have a huge crawldb (millions of urls) and you are indexing a small segment (~100-200K url segment). As you may know, keys are sorted between map and reduce phases (which actually is not necessary for indexing). But sorting a couple hundred thousand keys should'nt be a problem. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doğacan Güney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 2:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: RE : Nutch overhead to Lucene (or: why is Nutch 4 times slower > than Lucene ?) > > On 7/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't find the answer to my question yet but I made some progress: > > Using a profiler, I saw that a lot of time is spent looking for URL in the > > text document (using regular expression). This is something Lucene doesn't > > do. > > However, having recompiled the text parser without this scanning, it is > > still as slow. > > Now it seems that a lot of time is spent in hadoop framework (compared to > > say the indexing by Lucene and the loading of documents from the file > > system). > > > > Would that mean that the overhead of the Hadoop framework is killing the > > performance on a single box ? > > It is hard to say something without knowing what you are comparing. > > 1) How are you indexing pages with lucene (which analyzers, etc?) > > 2) Is 4H10M spent only in indexing job or is it the total duration of > the entire crawl? > > 3) How big is your crawldb, linkdb, etc.? Indexer reads a lot of > different structures to combine data, perhaps I/O takes a lot of > time... > > > > > > > -------- Message d'origine-------- > > De: Brette, Marc > > Date: lun. 23/07/2007 12:08 > > À: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Objet : Nutch overhead to Lucene (or: why is Nutch 4 times slower than > > Lucene ?) > > > > Hi all, > > I performed a little test where I index the same set of documents with > > Nutch (0.9) and Lucene. > > This is a set of documents from TREC, 134 000+ short text documents. > > > > With Lucene, it took 1H. With Nutch using the file:/ protocol, it took 4H10. > > > > Could anyone explain why there is such a difference and is there some way > > to eliminate part of this overhead ? > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Doğacan Güney > -- Doğacan Güney ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Nutch-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nutch-general
