Hi Suman
Here are some of the things we did:
- cache searcher/s
- cache indexreader/s
- all users use the same searchers
- perform a background search when apps starts to warm up search engine
- use numerics where necessary
- use shorter dates (i.e. do you really need a granularity of up to the
Hi ,
I am also using range based searches for dates .I am converting time to
utc based seconds format and storing them to indexes. and then running
range queries
Is there something needed to make it more efficient.
Thanks,
Suman
> Very nice! Thanks for sharing :)
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Ma
Looks like the bulk of your RAM usage is from the 370K index terms in
your terms dict...
The flex branch (once it lands) should substantially reduce that...
Mike
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Jamie wrote:
> Hi Everyone
>
> The stats I sent through earlier were erroneous due to fact the date
Hi Everyone
The stats I sent through earlier were erroneous due to fact the date
range query selected fewer records than stated.
The correct stats are:
Lucene 3.0 Stats:
Search conducted using Lucene's Realtime search feature
(writer.getReader() for each search)
Analyzer: Russian Analyzer
Hi Jamie,
thanks for reporting back the numbers about your usage of NumericField and
NumericRangeQuery! I am glad to hear about it.
> Sure. As soon as I get access to the server again, I'll get the mem
> stats for you. I will say that Lucene was consuming a large amount of
> memory before we mov
Hi Monique
Sure. As soon as I get access to the server again, I'll get the mem
stats for you. I will say that Lucene was consuming a large amount of
memory before we moved over to using Numerics. The reason for this is
that we were encoding dates as strings. Our date time strings were
unique,
Hi Jamie,
could you please tell us how much memory does your application consume
with Lucene? I'm asking it because we are having memory consumption problems
with a 32GB index and 1.5GB od RAM allocated to our web application. At the
momento, we use textual search.
Thanks in advance,
Monique
On
Very nice! Thanks for sharing :)
Mike
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Jamie wrote:
> I forgot to point out, this is a search using the Lucene realtime search
> feature. We get the reader from indexwriter.getReader() for each search.
>
> On 2010/03/19 01:49 PM, Jamie wrote:
>>
>> Hi Guys
>>
>>
I forgot to point out, this is a search using the Lucene realtime search
feature. We get the reader from indexwriter.getReader() for each search.
On 2010/03/19 01:49 PM, Jamie wrote:
Hi Guys
I just wanted to congratulate the Lucene guys for a fine job on 3.0!!
Since we switched our indexes to
