[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1035?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12537972
]
Ning Li commented on LUCENE-1035:
---------------------------------
> I don't think this is any better than the NIOFileCache directory I had
> already submitted.
Are you referring to LUCENE-414? I just read it and yes, it's similar to the
MemoryLRUCache part. Hopefully this is more general, not just for NioFile.
> It not really approved because the community felt that it did not offer much
> over the standard OS file system cache.
Well, it shows it has its value in cases where you can achieve a reasonable hit
ratio, right? This is optional. An application can test with its query log
first to see the hit ratio and then decide whether to use a buffer pool and if
so, how large.
> 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]
