Thanks for the quick reply, time to get to work on a prototype! On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the data is unrelated, separate indexes will lead to the best performance. > Memory usage should be less or equal to one big index. > File descriptor usage can be minimized by either calling optimize > before opening a new IndexSearcher (depends on how often you want to > see updates), lowering the merge factor, or using the compound file > format. > > -Yonik > > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Henrik Axelsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> After reading the FAQ I have a question regarding the use of multiple >> indexes and thus IndexSearches on the one server. >> >> I work on ecommerce websites and am looking at replacing our current method >> of full text searching product descriptions and names with a Lucene >> implementation. I envisaged creating a separate index file for each of the >> sites running on our main webserver (about 10 sites, each with different >> product listings). However this would mean that I would need to have many >> instances of IndexSearcher open and potentially come across file handle >> limit problems (as outlined in the FAQ) as well as consuming lots of memory. >> Is this a valid concern? Would I be able to use Lucene this way? >> >> An alternative would be to combine all the sites data into one index, and >> have a field identifiying which site each product entry belonged to. However >> I would rather not mix the data together. >> >> Thanks, >> Henrik >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
