> Thanks for your reply! Thanks :-)
> The reason why we cannot reuse IndexReader is that our server holds many > (>4000) independent index folders, each one corresponds to a separate URL. At > any time any folder can be queried, so we cannot hold all of them into > memory. So I expect the indexes very small. Reopening IndexReaders should also be fast with 3.x. I had another customer with a similar problem with no problems. > In lucene 2.3.2 query is fast even if we recreate IndexSearcher (therefore > Index- > Reader) each time. Yes I saw in source code even in 2.3.2 a lot of segement > information also are loaded into memory, and in 3.1.0 there seems a lot of > code changes in IndexReader initialization, so do we expect performance > change if we keep our way? > > Thanks very much for helps! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 2:29 PM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Upgrade lucene from 2.3.2 to 3.1.0 > > > Hi, > > > We plan to upgrade lucene from 2.3.2 to 3.1.0, from reading "Lucene In > Action" > > I learned that we should "warm up" IndexSearcher and donot expect > > initial a few queries to be fast. > > This was always the case, not only since Lucene 2.9/3.0. You should warm your > searchers. > > > But due to our special app we cannot "warm up" (each query has to use > > a new IndexSearcher), in lucene 2.3.2 this seems OK, Should we > > encounter obvious performance decrease in 3.1.0 if keeping this way? > > This seems to be an XY problem. Why can you not reuse IndexReaders? > > Uwe > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
