[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-753?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12609606#action_12609606
 ] 

Yonik Seeley commented on LUCENE-753:
-------------------------------------

.bq OK it's looking like SeparateFile is the best overall choice... it matches 
the best performance on Unix platforms and is very much the
lead on Windows.

The other implementations are fully-featured though (they could be used in 
lucene w/ extra synchronization, etc).  SeparateFile (opening a new file 
descriptor per reader) is not a real implementation that could be used... it's 
more of a theoretical maximum IMO.  Also remember that you can't open a new fd 
on demand since the file might already be deleted.  We would need a real 
PooledClassicFile implementation (like PooledPread).

On non-windows it looks like ChannelPread is probably the right choice.. near 
max performance and min fd usage



> Use NIO positional read to avoid synchronization in FSIndexInput
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-753
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-753
>             Project: Lucene - Java
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: Store
>            Reporter: Yonik Seeley
>         Attachments: FileReadTest.java, FileReadTest.java, FileReadTest.java, 
> FileReadTest.java, FileReadTest.java, FileReadTest.java, FileReadTest.java, 
> FSIndexInput.patch, FSIndexInput.patch, lucene-753.patch
>
>
> As suggested by Doug, we could use NIO pread to avoid synchronization on the 
> underlying file.
> This could mitigate any MT performance drop caused by reducing the number of 
> files in the index format.

-- 
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]

Reply via email to