Yes, your point made very good sense, thanks very much for helps! Lisheng
-----Original Message----- From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 5:53 PM To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Upgrade lucene from 2.3.2 to 3.1.0 It's hard to estimate this in the abstract, I'm afraid you'll just have to try it. Best Erick On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Zhang, Lisheng <lisheng.zh...@broadvision.com> wrote: > Our indexed data are around 200~300MB size (each folder), so it is > still small? > > Could you roughly estimate how big the indexed data size (10GB?) > needs to be, so that creating IndexReader each time could become a > serious issue? > > Thanks very much for helps! > > Lisheng > > -----Original Message----- > From: Uwe Schindler [mailto:u...@thetaphi.de] > Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 3:20 PM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Upgrade lucene from 2.3.2 to 3.1.0 > > >> 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
