On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Raf <r.ventag...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have repeated my tests using a searcher and now the performance on 2.9 are > very better than those on 2.4.1, especially when the filter extracts a lot > of docs.
OK, phew! > However the same search on the consolidated index is even faster This is very interesting... I think it must be because your field's terms have some redundancy (299,622 unique terms vs ~3M docs), so consolidation does improve performance substantially. You have readers from 72 different directories, but is each directory an optimized or unoptimized index? > now to verify if it is better for us to spend more time in creating indexes > (i.e. to add the overhead of consolidation) and to have very fast range > filter searches or to keep our small indexes and to have less fast range > filter searches. On 2.9, I would first try LongTrieRangeFilter... it's simple to use and may give you sizable performance gains on the MultiReader case (and, on the consolidated index case). > In any case, I must wait until lucene 2.9 will be officially released, > before put it on the production environment, so I think I will have to > consolidate indexes for now. OK... there're alot of good changes coming up in 2.9 so hopefully we can get a release out soon. Mike --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
