Re: Lucene 2.0.1 release date
I would very much like to see the .NET port in line with lucene java This would result in index compatibility and equivalent features as that lucene provides George - Cheers for the continuous effort to keep lucene.net in line with Lucene Regards, Prabhu On 10/14/06, Otis Gospodnetic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd have to check CHANGES.txt, but I don't think that many bugs have been fixed and not that many new features added that anyone is itching for a new release. Otis - Original Message oFrom: George Aroush [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org; java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 10:32:47 AM Subject: RE: Lucene 2.0.1 release date Hi folks, Sorry for reposting this question (see original email below) and this time to both mailing list. If anyone can tell me what is the plan for Lucene 2.0.1 release, I would appreciate it very much. As some of you may know, I am the porter of Lucene to Lucene.Net knowing when 2.0.1 will be released will help me plan things out. Regards, -- George Aroush -Original Message- From: George Aroush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 12:07 AM To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Lucene 2.0.1 release date Hi folks, What's the plan for Lucene 2.0.1 release date? Thanks! -- George Aroush - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Searching API: QueryParser vs Programatic queries
If i understand correctly, is it that you dont want to make use of query parse? You need to parse a query string without using query parser and construct the query and still want an analyzer applied on the outcome search. On 5/22/0 p6, Irving, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Otis, Thanks for your reply. Yeah, Im aware of PerFieldAnalyserWrapper - and I think it could help in the solution - but not on its own. Here's what I mean: When we build a document Field, we suppy either a String or a Reader. The framework takes care of running the contents through an Analyser (per field or otherwise) when we add the document to an index. However, on the searching side of things, we don't have similar functionality unless we use the QueryParser. If we build queries programatically, then we have to make sure (by hand) that we run search terms through the appropriate analyser whilst constructing the query. Its in this area that I wonder whether additional utility classes could make programatic construction of queries somewhat easier. Dave -Original Message- From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 May 2006 15:59 To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Searching API: QueryParser vs Programatic queries Dave, You said you are new to Lucene and you didn't mention this class explicitly, so you may not be aware of it yet: PerFieldAnalyzerWrapper. It sounds like this may be what you are after. Otis - Original Message From: Irving, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 5:15:23 AM Subject: Searching API: QueryParser vs Programatic queries Hi, Im very new to Lucene - so sorry if my question seems pretty dumb. In the application Im writing, I've been struggling with myself over whether I should be building up queries programatically, or using the Query Parser. My searchable fields are driven by meta-data, and I only want to support a few query types. It seems cleaner to build the queries up programatically rather than converting the query to a string and throwing it through the QueryParser. However, then we hit the problem that the QueryParser takes care of Analysing the search strings - so to do this we'd have to write some utility stuff to perform the analysis as we're building up the queries / terms. And then I think might as well just use the QueryParser!. So here's what Im wondering (which probably sounds very dumb to experienced Lucene'rs): - Is there maybe some room for more utility classes in Lucene which make this easier? E.g: When building up a document, we don't have to worry about running content through an analyser - but unless we use QueryParser, there doesn't seem to be corresponding behaviour on the search side. - So, Im thinking some kind of factory / builder or something, where you can register an Analyser (possibly a per field wrapper), and then it is applied per field as the query is being built up programatically. Maybe this is just an extraction refactoring to take this behaviour out of QueryParser (which could delegate to it). The result could be that more users opt for a programatic build up of queries (because it's become easier to do..) rather than falling back on QueryParser in cases where it may not be the best choice. Sorry if I rambled too much :o) Dave This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you. - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: java.io.IOException: Lock obtain timed out: Lock@/tmp/lucene-dcc982e203ef1d2aebb5d8a4b55b3a60-write.lock
You are creating two IndexWriters on the same directory I guess that is the reason for the problem and one holds the lock Rgds Prabhu On 4/15/06, Puneet Lakhina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I am very new to lucene. I am using it in my application to index and serach through text files. And my program is more or less similar to the demo privided with lucene distribution. Initially everything was working fine without any problems. But today while running the application i have been getting this exception java.io.IOException: Lock obtain timed out: Lock@/tmp/lucene- dcc982e203ef1d2aebb5d8a4b55b3a60-write.lock whever i try to read or write to the index. I am unable to understand why this is happening. IS there some mistake I am making in the code.. because I havent changed any code, which was working smoothly up until today!!! My version of lucene is 1.9.1 I deleted the index directory and tried again and voila now it works again!! But if I am going to be delivering my application I would really like to know why this was happening to guard against it.. Thanks -- Puneet
Re: Compass Framework
Database implementation of the index is always bound to be slow compared to storing it on the filesystem. Probably the group which stores indexes into Berkley DB should be able to give you a performance measuer of what will happen you store indexex in databases. Rgds Prabhu On 4/8/06, Marios Skounakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I recently came across the Compass Framework, which is built on top of lucene. I am interested in it because it stores the lucene index in an RDBMS and provides transaction support for index updates (it also has several other features but this is the part I'm mostly interested in). I wanted to know if any people here have had any experience with compass and what they think about it. Is the database implementation of the index fast enough and does it introduce any additional issues/problems? Thanks in advance, Marios Msg sent via eXis webmail - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Compound Indexes Problem
Does changing the merge factor
and setting the options to SetUseCompoundfile(false)
split a single index into multiple pieces.
Even i have been doing something similar and would like to know how it is
done
Rdgs
Prabhu
On 3/31/06, depsi programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Thanks for your responce.
can you please guide me on how to break this single index into multiple
pieces. when I try to do so it corrupts the index.
I had created a index with max merge docs set to 10,000 with set compound
indexes set to true. now I called optimize with max merge docs set to 100
and the index was curropted
Thanks
Depsi
Dennis Kubes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to the Lucene In
Action book you can convert from one compound to
multi-file and vice versa by setting the setCompoundFile method to true or
false. But in running this myself I found that while I can convert from
multi-file to compound, it doesn't convert back. Here is the code that I
used.
try {
System.setProperty(org.apache.lucene.lockDir,
lock-directory-path-here);
String idxDir = index-directory-path-here;
IndexWriter writer = new IndexWriter(idxDir, new StandardAnalyzer(),
false);
writer.setUseCompoundFile(false);
writer.optimize();
writer.close();
}
catch (IOException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
Dennis
-Original Message-
From: depsi programmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:57 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Compound Indexes Problem
Hello,
I am using lucene for storing details of my students. I have used
SetUseCompoundFile(True) and optimised the indexes. Now I am not able to
convert them back to their original form
Thanks in advance
Depsi
-
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save
big.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
rates.
Re: Lucene indexing on Hadoop distributed file system
I would like to see lucene operate with hadoop As you rightly pointed out, writing using FSDirectory to DFS would be a performance issue. I am interested in the idea. But i do not know how much time i can contribute to this because of the little time which i can spare. If anyone else is interested, can they join ? We can work on this together Rgds Prabhu On 3/26/06, Igor Bolotin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my current project we needed a way to create very large Lucene indexes on Hadoop distributed file system. When we tried to do it directly on DFS using Nutch FsDirectory class - we immediately found that indexing fails because DfsIndexOutput.seek() method throws UnsupportedOperationException. The reason for this behavior is clear - DFS does not support random updates and so seek() method can't be supported (at least not easily). Well, if we can't support random updates - the question is: do we really need them? Search in the Lucene code revealed 2 places which call IndexOutput.seek() method: one is in TermInfosWriter and another one in CompoundFileWriter. As we weren't planning to use CompoundFileWriter - the only place that concerned us was in TermInfosWriter. TermInfosWriter uses IndexOutput.seek() in its close() method to write total number of terms in the file back into the beginning of the file. It was very simple to change file format a little bit and write number of terms into last 8 bytes of the file instead of writing them into beginning of file. The only other place that should be fixed in order for this to work is in SegmentTermEnum constructor - to read this piece of information at position = file length - 8. With this format hack - we were able to use FsDirectory to write index directly to DFS without any problems. Well - we still don't index directly to DFS for performance reasons, but at least we can build small local indexes and merge them into the main index on DFS without copying big main index back and forth. If somebody is interested - I can post our changes in TermInfosWriter and SegmentTermEnum code, although they are pretty trivial. Best regards! Igor
Re: Can i use lucene to search the internet.
Hi It can be used if you run cygwin (the latest version) Please have a look at nutch wiki And you are mailing the wrong list Rgds Prabhu On 3/23/06, Babu, KameshNarayana (GE, Research, consultant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hai All, Can NUTCH be used in Windoes OS -Original Message- *From:* gekkokid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:22 AM *To:* java-user@lucene.apache.org *Subject:* Re: Can i use lucene to search the internet. Hi, are you asking does it have a crawler? no it doesn't but nutch does http://lucene.apache.org/nutch/ :) _gk - Original Message - *From:* Babu, KameshNarayana (GE, Research, consultant)[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* java-user@lucene.apache.org *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:44 AM *Subject:* Can i use lucene to search the internet. hi all, Can i use lucene to search the internet. Are do we have nay open source applications. Thanks in advance [image: ole0.bmp]* GE Global Research* *Kamesh NarayanaBabu* *John F. Welch Technology Centre Information Technology Management, Plot 122, Export Promotion Industrial Park, Phase II, Hoodi Village, Whitefield Road, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560066, INDIA. Phone: +91 (80) 2503 0457 | GE Dial comm.: 8 * 901 0359 | Mobile: +91 9986259850 | Email:- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Read past EOF error in Windows
Check Whether it has got anything to do with UTF There is a new line difference between windows and linux Rgds Prabhu On 3/24/06, Chris Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No that doesnt seem to be the problem. Anyone have any other ideas? On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I had a problem in the past with security on the folder where your index is located...but your error does not seem to show that ... I would check anyway though... -Original Message- From: Chris Cain cbc20[at]hermes.cam.ac.uk To: java-user[at]lucene.apache.org Sent: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:33:26 + (GMT) Subject: Read past EOF error in Windows Hi all, I wrote a lucene program which runs fine under Linux and Mac but fails on most Windows machines. (I have managed to get it to work on one version of XP however) Specifically when i open or search the index i get the following error message. Any help would be appreciated, Cheers, Chris caught a class java.io.IOException with message: read past EOF java.io.IOException: read past EOF at org.apache.lucene.store.FSIndexInput.readInternal(FSDirectory.java:451) at org.apache.lucene.store.BufferedIndexInput.readBytes( BufferedIndexInput.java:45) at org.apache.lucene.index.CompoundFileReader$CSIndexInput.readInternal( CompoundFileReader.java:219) at org.apache.lucene.store.BufferedIndexInput.refill(BufferedIndexInput.java :64) at org.apache.lucene.store.BufferedIndexInput.readByte( BufferedIndexInput.java:33) at org.apache.lucene.store.IndexInput.readInt(IndexInput.java:46) at org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentTermEnum.init(SegmentTermEnum.java:47) at org.apache.lucene.index.TermInfosReader.init(TermInfosReader.java:48) at org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentReader.initialize(SegmentReader.java:147) at org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentReader.get(SegmentReader.java:129) at org.apache.lucene.index.SegmentReader.get(SegmentReader.java:115) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexReader$1.doBody(IndexReader.java:150) at org.apache.lucene.store.Lock$With.run(Lock.java:109) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexReader.open(IndexReader.java:143) at org.apache.lucene.index.IndexReader.open(IndexReader.java:127) at org.apache.lucene.search.IndexSearcher.init(IndexSearcher.java:42) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe[at]lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help[at]lucene.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: lucene highlighter
Hi Mark Currently both of the terms have the same score (weightage) As you mentioned, i would want it to be decreased so during the next run for selecting second fragment, term1 has less weightage and term2 which has not been selected has more weightage Thanks Rgds Prabhu On 3/22/06, mark harwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can i adjust the lucene highlighter to make sure that atleast each term is displayed in the query result First some, basic things to sanity check: * A classic problem: are you using compatible analyzers for tokenizing the query and the document content (both index time and highlight time)? Term2 may not be being produced at all. * Are you selecting only one fragment and using a fragmenter implementation that means Term1 and Term2 don't happen to fall within the scope of this single fragment? If both of these checks turn out OK I suspect what is happening is that term2 is weighted significantly less than term1 (based on idf and query boosts) and the highlighter may be continually selecting multiple fragments with term1 in preference to selecting any fragments which only contain the lower scoring term2. If this is the case and you really want to ensure that term2 gets shown then you can use a custom Scorer implementation that influences the highlighter according to your preferences. Such an implementation could, for example, score fragments that are merely repetitions of the same hits (ie your term1) with a decreasing value. This would then allow the fragments with term2 to be considered more strongly for selection. Hope this helps Mark ___ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adaptive fetch schedule
Hi Does the inlink value problem solve the OPIC problem which was there. That is on a recrawl, the page would have a higher score. Does this fix that problem? Rgds Prabhu
wildcard support
Hi I am using the highlightertest.java to extract the wild card terms. I use the queryParser to parse my queryString Then i store the text in a RAM directory ( which i want to scan) and then rewrite it as mentioned in the highlighter example query=query.rewrite(reader) Now if i print the query, i see that it does not contain anything I repeat the query does not contain anything What is the reason for this problem? Any help would be appreciated. Rgds Prabhu
lucene highlighter
Hi guys If anyone can tell me how to get the best fragments using the highligher The query has two terms - term1 and term2 The search result display only term1 in the highlighter whereas term2 is also there. How can i adjust the lucene highlighter to make sure that atleast each term is displayed in the query result Rgds Prabhu
rewriting a query doubt
Hi When you rewrite a query using query=query.rewrite(reader) Does the query change automtically. For example if the query was n*w and the reader has new,now,noow Does the query change to new,now,noow Can someone tell me how it works Rgds Prabhu
lucene query analysis
Hi The problem which i am facing is that the query is Case Sensitive If i type in BIG letters i am not able to see answers and if i type in small letters i am able to see results Is there anything by which i can do a case conversion Now i am using a WhiteSpaceAnalyser . What Analyser should change it to ? Rgds Prabhu
query parser
I want to use query parser to parse my query string But the default field should be a group of fields with different fields where it is searched on Can any one let me know For example if my query is new books new should be searched in different fields ( content and title) books should be searched in different fields ( content and title) How do i accomplish this and how can i extend querparser to do the above
Re: query parser
Hi Rainer Thanks. I have one more doubt. How do i set different boosts for each field using query parser Can i set different boosts for each field? Rgds Prabhu On 3/8/06, Rainer Dollinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Take a look at the class MultiFieldQueryParser, I think it does exactly what you want. GR, Rainer Raghavendra Prabhu wrote: I want to use query parser to parse my query string But the default field should be a group of fields with different fields where it is searched on Can any one let me know For example if my query is new books new should be searched in different fields ( content and title) books should be searched in different fields ( content and title) How do i accomplish this and how can i extend querparser to do the above - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MuliField Query Parser
Hi I need different boosts for fields which we define in multifield query parser How can this be accomplished?? Rgds Prabhu
Re: Throughput doesn't increase when using more concurrent threads
Can nutch be made to use lucene query parser? Rgds Prabhu On 2/23/06, Peter Keegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Otis, The Lucene server is actually CPU and network bound, as the index gets memory mapped pretty quickly. There is little disk activity observed. I was also able to run the server on a Sun box last night with 4 dual core opterons (same Linux and JVM) and I'm observing query rates of 400 qps! Has Linux been optimized to run on this hardware? I imagine that Sun's JVM has been. Peter On 2/22/06, Otis Gospodnetic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Some things that could be different: - thread scheduling (shouldn't make too much of a difference though) --- I would also play with disk IO schedulers, if you can. CentOS is based on RedHat, I believe, and RedHat (ext3, really) now has about 4 different IO schedulers that, according to articles I recently read, can have an impact on disk read/write performance. These schedules can be specified at mount time, I believe, and maybe at boot time (kernel line in Grub/LILO). Otis On 2/22/06, Peter Keegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am doing a performance comparison of Lucene on Linux vs Windows. I have 2 identically configured servers (8-CPUs (real) x 3GHz Xeon processors, 64GB RAM). One is running CentOS 4 Linux, the other is running Windows server 2003 Enterprise Edition x64. Both have 64-bit JVMs from Sun. The Lucene server is using MMapDirectory. I'm running the jvm with -Xmx16000M. Peak memory usage of the jvm on Linux is about 6GB and 7.8GBon windows. I'm observing query rates of 330 queries/sec on the Wintel server, but only 200 qps on the Linux box. At first, I suspected a network bottleneck, but when I 'short-circuited' Lucene, the query rates were identical. I suspect that there are some things to be tuned in Linux, but I'm not sure what. Any advice would be appreciated. Peter On 1/30/06, Peter Keegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cranked up the dial on my query tester and was able to get the rate up to 325 qps. Unfortunately, the machine died shortly thereafter (memory errors :-( ) Hopefully, it was just a coincidence. I haven't measured 64-bit indexing speed, yet. Peter On 1/29/06, Daniel Noll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Keegan wrote: I tried the AMD64-bit JVM from Sun and with MMapDirectory and I'm now getting 250 queries/sec and excellent cpu utilization (equal concurrency on all cpus)!! Yonik, thanks for the pointer to the 64-bit jvm. I wasn't aware of it. Wow. That's fast. Out of interest, does indexing time speed up much on 64-bit hardware? I'm particularly interested in this side of things because for our own application, any query response under half a second is good enough, but the indexing side could always be faster. :-) Daniel -- Daniel Noll Nuix Australia Pty Ltd Suite 79, 89 Jones St, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia Phone: (02) 9280 0699 Fax: (02) 9212 6902 This message is intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or attachment is strictly prohibited. - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Throughput doesn't increase when using more concurrent threads
Hi Sorry for the trouble I was sending my first mail to the group and replied to this thread and then later on sent a direct mail. I would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused. Rgds Prabhu On 2/23/06, Otis Gospodnetic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Please ask on the Nutch mailing list (I answered your question in general@ already). Also, please don't steal other people's threads - it's considered inpolite for obvious reasons. Otis - Original Message From: Raghavendra Prabhu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:10:11 AM Subject: Re: Throughput doesn't increase when using more concurrent threads Can nutch be made to use lucene query parser? Rgds Prabhu On 2/23/06, Peter Keegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Otis, The Lucene server is actually CPU and network bound, as the index gets memory mapped pretty quickly. There is little disk activity observed. I was also able to run the server on a Sun box last night with 4 dual core opterons (same Linux and JVM) and I'm observing query rates of 400 qps! Has Linux been optimized to run on this hardware? I imagine that Sun's JVM has been. Peter On 2/22/06, Otis Gospodnetic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Some things that could be different: - thread scheduling (shouldn't make too much of a difference though) --- I would also play with disk IO schedulers, if you can. CentOS is based on RedHat, I believe, and RedHat (ext3, really) now has about 4 different IO schedulers that, according to articles I recently read, can have an impact on disk read/write performance. These schedules can be specified at mount time, I believe, and maybe at boot time (kernel line in Grub/LILO). Otis On 2/22/06, Peter Keegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am doing a performance comparison of Lucene on Linux vs Windows. I have 2 identically configured servers (8-CPUs (real) x 3GHz Xeon processors, 64GB RAM). One is running CentOS 4 Linux, the other is running Windows server 2003 Enterprise Edition x64. Both have 64-bit JVMs from Sun. The Lucene server is using MMapDirectory. I'm running the jvm with -Xmx16000M. Peak memory usage of the jvm on Linux is about 6GB and 7.8GBon windows. I'm observing query rates of 330 queries/sec on the Wintel server, but only 200 qps on the Linux box. At first, I suspected a network bottleneck, but when I 'short-circuited' Lucene, the query rates were identical. I suspect that there are some things to be tuned in Linux, but I'm not sure what. Any advice would be appreciated. Peter On 1/30/06, Peter Keegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cranked up the dial on my query tester and was able to get the rate up to 325 qps. Unfortunately, the machine died shortly thereafter (memory errors :-( ) Hopefully, it was just a coincidence. I haven't measured 64-bit indexing speed, yet. Peter On 1/29/06, Daniel Noll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Keegan wrote: I tried the AMD64-bit JVM from Sun and with MMapDirectory and I'm now getting 250 queries/sec and excellent cpu utilization (equal concurrency on all cpus)!! Yonik, thanks for the pointer to the 64-bit jvm. I wasn't aware of it. Wow. That's fast. Out of interest, does indexing time speed up much on 64-bit hardware? I'm particularly interested in this side of things because for our own application, any query response under half a second is good enough, but the indexing side could always be faster. :-) Daniel -- Daniel Noll Nuix Australia Pty Ltd Suite 79, 89 Jones St, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia Phone: (02) 9280 0699 Fax: (02) 9212 6902 This message is intended only for the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or attachment is strictly prohibited. - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED
