Hi All,
Sorry about that please disregard that last email. I must not be fully
awake yet.
Sorry,
Kevin Runde
-Original Message-
From: Runde, Kevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 7:34 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Search performance with one index vs
Follow Up to the article from Friday
-Original Message-
From: Morus Walter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 1:30 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Search performance with one index vs. many indexes
Jochen Franke writes:
> Topic: Search performance w
Jochen Franke writes:
> Topic: Search performance with large numbers of indexes vs. one large index
>
>
> My questions are:
>
> - Is the size of the "wordlist" the problem?
> - Would we be a lot faster, when we have a smaller number
> of files per index?
sure.
Look:
Index lookup of a word is O
tests.
Best,
Sergiu
Michael
-Original Message-
From: David Townsend [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:50 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Search Performance
IndexSearchers are thread safe, so you can use the same object on multiple
requests. If the ind
Yes, until it's cleaned up, and as soon as the last client is done with
Hits, the originating IndexSearcher is ready for cleanup if nobody else
is holding references to it. You can close it explicityly, as you are
doing, too, no harm.
Otis
--- Chris Lamprecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn
Wouldn't this leave open file handles? I had a problem where there
were lots of open file handles for deleted index files, because the
old searchers were not being closed.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:41:37 -0800 (PST), Otis Gospodnetic
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or you could just open a new IndexSe
Users List; Chris Lamprecht
Subject: Re: Search Performance
Or you could just open a new IndexSearcher, forget the old one, and
have GC collect it when everyone is done with it.
Otis
--- Chris Lamprecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I should have mentioned, the reason for not doing this the o
Just tried that... works like a charm... thanks...
Michael
-Original Message-
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:42 PM
To: Lucene Users List; Chris Lamprecht
Subject: Re: Search Performance
Or you could just open a new IndexSearcher
Or you could just open a new IndexSearcher, forget the old one, and
have GC collect it when everyone is done with it.
Otis
--- Chris Lamprecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should have mentioned, the reason for not doing this the obvious,
> simple way (just close the Searcher and reopen it if a
Thanks... I am seeing this problem right now Has anyone implemented a
better solution...?
Michael
-Original Message-
From: Chris Lamprecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 4:14 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Search Performance
I should have mentioned
I should have mentioned, the reason for not doing this the obvious,
simple way (just close the Searcher and reopen it if a new version is
available) is because some threads could be in the middle of iterating
through the search Hits. If you close the Searcher they get a Bad
file descriptor IOExcep
nal Message-
> From: David Townsend [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:50 AM
> To: Lucene Users List
> Subject: RE: Search Performance
>
> IndexSearchers are thread safe, so you can use the same object on multiple
> requests. If the index is stat
I am using the highlighter... does this matter
-Original Message-
From: David Spencer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:05 PM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Search Performance
Are you using the highlighter or doing anything non-trivial in
displaying the
Are you using the highlighter or doing anything non-trivial in
displaying the results?
Are the pages being compressed (mod_gzip or some servlet equivalent)?
This definitely helps, though to see the effect you may have to make
sure your simulated users are "remote".
Also consider caching search
Noone has mentioned JVM options yet.
[a] -server
[b] -XX:CompileThreshold=1000
[c] Raise the -Xms value if you haven't done so (-Xms...)
I think by default the VM runs with "-client" but -server makes more
sense for web containers (Tomcat etc).
[b] tells the hotspot compiler to compile methods soo
My index is changing in real time constantly... in this case I guess this
will not work for me any suggestions...
Michael
-Original Message-
From: David Townsend [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:50 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Search Performance
t: 18 February 2005 16:15
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Re: Search Performance
Try a singleton pattern or an static field.
Stefan
Michael Celona wrote:
>I am creating new IndexSearchers... how do I cache my IndexSearcher...
>
>Michael
>
>-Original Message-
>From: David
: RE: Search Performance
Are you creating new IndexSearchers or IndexReaders on each search? Caching
your IndexSearchers has a dramatic effect on speed.
David Townsend
-Original Message-
From: Michael Celona [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 February 2005 15:55
To: Lucene Users List
I am creating new IndexSearchers... how do I cache my IndexSearcher...
Michael
-Original Message-
From: David Townsend [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:00 AM
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: RE: Search Performance
Are you creating new IndexSearchers or
Are you creating new IndexSearchers or IndexReaders on each search? Caching
your IndexSearchers has a dramatic effect on speed.
David Townsend
-Original Message-
From: Michael Celona [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 February 2005 15:55
To: Lucene Users List
Subject: Search Performance
20 matches
Mail list logo
