Robert: Ah, right. I keep confusing my gmail lists "lucene dev" and "lucene list"....
Siiigggghhhhh. On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you have sparse data, I would have expected index time to *decrease*, > not increase. > > Can you enable the IW info stream and share flush + merge times to see > where indexing time goes? > > If you can run with a profiler, this might also give useful information. > > Le jeu. 18 janv. 2018 à 11:23, Rob Audenaerde <rob.audenae...@gmail.com> a > écrit : > >> Hi all, >> >> We recently upgraded from Lucene 6.6 to 7.1. We see a significant drop in >> indexing performace. >> >> We have a-typical use of Lucene, as we (also) index some database tables >> and add all the values as AssociatedFacetFields as well. This allows us to >> create pivot tables on search results really fast. >> >> These tables have some overlapping columns, but also disjoint ones. >> >> We anticipated a decrease in index size because of the sparse docvalues. We >> see this happening, with decreases to ~50%-80% of the original index size. >> But we did not expect an drop in indexing performance (client systems >> indexing time increased with +50% to +250%). >> >> (Our indexing-speed used to be mainly bound by the speed the Taxonomy could >> deliver new ordinals for new values, currently we are investigating if this >> is still the case, will report later when a profiler run has been done) >> >> Does anyone know if this increase in indexing time is to be expected as >> result of the sparse docvalues change? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rob Audenaerde >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
