[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12879290#action_12879290
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-2056:
--------------------------------------------
Thanks Steven! Was this with the above alg (ie, 4 threads doing searching)?
Could you also try the search using NIOFSDirectory?
Also, if possible, it'd be better to test against a larger index -- such
super-fast queries allow the query init cost to unduly impact that results (eg,
allocating a direct buffer is more costly than allocating a non-direct buffer).
> Should NIOFSDir use direct ByteBuffers?
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-2056
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2056
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Store
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-2056.patch
>
>
> I'm trying to test NRT performance, and noticed when I dump the thread stacks
> that the darned threads often seem to be in
> {{java.nio.Bits.copyToByteArray(Native Method)}}... so I wondered whether we
> could/should use direct ByteBuffers, and whether that would gain performance
> in general. We currently just use our own byte[] buffer via
> BufferedIndexInput.
> It's hard to test since it's likely platform specific, but if it does result
> in gains it could be an easy win.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
