[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10125?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17421499#comment-17421499
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-10125:
---------------------------------------
Here are timings in millis. I have two numbers for merges: one for 1st-level
merges and another one for 2nd-level merges.
|| || 654e9781907 || 9f80b4d8fbd ||
| points flush | 60 | 55 |
| DV flush | 21 | 24 |
| postings flush | 4 | 4 |
| points merge | 420 / 3750 | 360 / 3250 |
| DV merge | 350 / 3500 | 370/ 3800 |
| postings merge | 49 / 490 | 45 / 450 |
| stored fields merge | 2 / 315 | 2 / 340 |
So the overall flush/merge times are quite stable. I wonder if there's
something else at play here like a different JDK version or a change to the
benchmark. Or maybe the slowdown is in IndexingChain's buffering.
> Investigate indexing throughput regression on NYC Taxis between 2021-04-12
> and 2021-05-24
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10125
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10125
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Assignee: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-10125_hack.patch
>
> Time Spent: 2h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> There's been a significant drop in indexing throughput between 2021-04-12 and
> 2021-05-24 on the NYC Taxis benchmark. Unfortunately several suspects have
> been merged during that period of time so we might need to git bisect to
> figure out which one is responsible for the regression. Interestingly the
> sorted index looks less affected than the non-sorted indexes.
> https://home.apache.org/~mikemccand/lucenebench/sparseResults.html#index_throughput
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
