Point about premature optimization makes sense for me. However some time ago I've bookmarked potentially useful approach http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/High-response-time-after-being-idle-tp3616599p3617604.html.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk>wrote: > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 11:38 +0200, Li Li wrote: > > yes, I need average query time less than 10 ms. The faster the better. > > I have enough memory for lucene because I know there are not too much > > data. there are not many modifications. every day there are about > > hundreds of document update. if indexes are not in physical memory, > > then IO operations will cost a few ms. > > I'm with Michael on this one: It seems that you're doing a premature > optimization. Guessing that your final index will be < 5GB in size with > 1 million documents (give or take 900.000:-), relatively simple queries > and so on, an average response time of 10 ms should be attainable even > on spinning drives. One hundred document updates per day are not many, > so again I would not expect problems. > > As is often the case on this mailing list, the advice is "try it". Using > a normal on-disk index and doing some warm up is the easy solution to > implement and nearly all of your work on this will be usable for a > RAM-based solution, if you are not satisfied with the speed. Or you > could buy a small & cheap SSD and have no more worries... > > Regards, > Toke Eskildsen > > -- Sincerely yours Mikhail Khludnev Tech Lead Grid Dynamics <http://www.griddynamics.com> <mkhlud...@griddynamics.com>
