Our index is currently about 40Gb. The advantage of binding a user is that once a search is performed then caching within lucene and in the application is very effective if subsequent searches go back to the same box. Our initial searches are usually in the sub 100milliS range while subsequent requests for deeper pages in the search are returned instantly.
Bryan McCormick On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 01:24, Andy wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > How big is your index? > > Also what is the advantage of binding a user to a > server? > > Thanks. > Andy > > --- Bryan McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi chris, > > > > I'm responsible for the webshots.com search index > > and we've had very > > good results with lucene. It currently indexes over > > 100 Million > > documents and performs 4 Million searches / day. > > > > We initially tested running multiple small copies > > and using a > > MultiSearcher and then merging results as compared > > to running a very > > large single index. We actually found that the > > single large instance > > performed better. To improve load handling we > > clustered multiple > > identical copies together, then session bind a user > > to particular server > > and cache the results, but each server is running a > > single index. > > > > Bryan McCormick > > > > > > On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 08:01, Chris D wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I have a question about scaling lucene across a > > cluster, and good ways > > > of breaking up the work. > > > > > > We have a very large index and searches sometimes > > take more time than > > > they're allowed. What we have been doing is during > > indexing we index > > > into 256 seperate indexes (depending on the > > md5sum) then distribute > > > the indexes to the search machines. So if a > > machine has 128 indexes it > > > would have to do 128 searches. I gave > > parallelMultiSearcher a try and > > > it was significantly slower than simply iterating > > through the indexes > > > one at a time. > > > > > > Our new plan is to somehow have only one index per > > search machine and > > > a larger main index stored on the master. > > > > > > What I'm interested to know is whether having one > > extremely large > > > index for the master then splitting the index into > > several smaller > > > indexes (if this is possible) would be better than > > having several > > > smaller indexes and merging them on the search > > machines into one > > > index. > > > > > > I would also be interested to know how others have > > divided up search > > > work across a cluster. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
