bq. We switched to ByteBuffersDirectory with 7.5, but I actually didn't see much performance improvements or savings in memory.
Once the indexes are built I don't think there will be much of a difference. The core problem with RAMDirectory was related to synchronizations during merges/ file manipulations. D. On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:18 PM Arjen van der Meijden <acmmail...@tweakers.net> wrote: > > I doubt using Redis as directory-storage will be very good. I'd expect > it to have much more latency for reads and writes compared to any of > lucene's own directories. And Lucene probably won't like it if another > Lucene-instance changes that database. > > It may be interesting as a result-level cache though, if you have a > relatively large amount of repeated queries. > > With regards to RAMDirectory (and its successor the > ByteBuffersDirectory), it works well enough for our setup: we run an > in-memory copy of our regular sql database in an elastic search like > setup to support very fast responses with a form of faceted search which > would require relatively complex sql-statements (and many repeated > ones). Lucene is only used for textual search in that system. > > We didn't want any trouble trying to sync whatever is on disk with the > database and/or having to purchase relatively expensive storage in the > servers. The total application uses about 6GB of RAM, of which somewhere > between 1/2 and 1/3 is for the Lucene directories (about 20-30). > We run an independent copy of that application on each of our 4 > applications servers, so we can afford a relatively long startup time of > the application. In all it only takes about 4-5 minutes to load all data > and build in-memory lucene databases. > > Our largest Lucene directory is about 400MB, and RAMDirectory worked > pretty good for this. We switched to ByteBuffersDirectory with 7.5, but > I actually didn't see much performance improvements or savings in memory. > > If you do care about the rebuild time of your search engine, than just > using Lucene's recommended database and not trying to add additional > complexity with those in-memory databases is probably a good idea :) > > Best regards, > > Arjen > > On 2-12-2018 10:22, Joe MA wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > Has anyone looked into using Redis or some other in-memory cache with > > Lucene? > > It seems that ElasticSearch may do this. Are there advantages to doing > > this versus, say, the RAMDirectory class? > > > > Thanks in advance, > > J > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
