[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12537827
]
Doug Cutting commented on LUCENE-1035:
--------------------------------------
Were the tests run using the same set of queries they were warmed for? If so,
an interesting benchmark might be to, e.g., start with 200 queries, then warm
things with the first 100 and use the second for the benchmark. Ideally you'd
start with a log of real queries, but those are hard to obtain. Over ten years
ago I released a 1M query log from Excite, which I still see people reference
in papers, so it must be out there somewhere. It would be better than nothing
for these kinds of benchmarks. Or perhaps we can obtain a copy of the
more-recent AOL query log? Otherwise you've only demonstrated an improvement
when queries are frequently repeated. There are better ways to optimize for
that, e.g., by caching hit lists, no?
> Optional Buffer Pool to Improve Search Performance
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-1035
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1035
> Project: Lucene - Java
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Store
> Reporter: Ning Li
> Attachments: LUCENE-1035.patch
>
>
> Index in RAMDirectory provides better performance over that in FSDirectory.
> But many indexes cannot fit in memory or applications cannot afford to
> spend that much memory on index. On the other hand, because of locality,
> a reasonably sized buffer pool may provide good improvement over FSDirectory.
> This issue aims at providing such an optional buffer pool layer. In cases
> where it fits, i.e. a reasonable hit ratio can be achieved, it should provide
> a good improvement over FSDirectory.
--
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]
