"eks dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Interesting. This matches the experience Doron had where adding more > >RAM actually slowed things down a bit (posted to > >LUCENE-843). > > I know this intrigues you, so our fresh experience:
Yes it does! Thanks :) > The bigger the RAM Buffer the faster indexing, this holds until you hit > some limit that starts irritating gc(). But this limit is somehow > "natural" and is given by the environment (available RAM, competing OS > File cache and who knows what else)... basically , we concluded after > testing the more memory, more speed is to expect (this is kind of ideal > scaling, one proof more of the algorithmic strength). OK, this is a good datapoint. It sound like one has to test in their own environment to find the optimal performance / RAM usage tradeoff. > This test showed 110k Docs/second at 32Mb (what we found to be optimal > for our needs, as it slowly speeds-up after that to 123k Docs/sec at > 256Mb) > > I suspect this phenomena on our last test and what Doron mentioned was > due to the wrong maxBufferedDocs. Have no other explanation > > Basically, we achieved almost 20 X speed-up by just having LUCEN-843 and > your valuable comments on how to utilize this nice machine called > Lucene. WOW! That's great :) Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
