Eh, fine then! ;) I am using the compound format in my apps, too. Otis
--- Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ I moved this discussion to the developer list.] > > My metric here is the rate of complaint. > > I'm tired of hearing about "too many file handles" problems. > Ususally > it is caused by folks opening a new searcher for each query, and the > garbage collector not collecting and closing the old ones fast > enough, > so it signals other problems with the application, but it is still > annoying, and could be largely quashed. > > By some definition, anything which causes so many repeated complaints > is > a bug, and should be fixed. Even if it's really not a bug. It pains > > users of Lucene. It annoys developers of Lucene. > > Think of it like mergeFactor, etc.: the default setting may not be > the > absolute fastest, but it is one that is likely to run well in most > configurations and cause the least confusion. > > Doug > > Terry Steichen wrote: > > I tend to agree (but with the same uncertainty as to why I feel > that way). > > > > Regards, > > > > Terry > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Otis Gospodnetic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 2:34 PM > > Subject: Re: Sys properties Was: java.io.tmpdir as lock dir .... > once again > > > > > > > >>I can't explain why, but I feel like the old index format should > stay > >>by default. I feel like I'd rather a (slightly) faster index, and > >>switch to the compound one when/IF I encounter problems, than have > a > >>safer, but slower index, and never realize that there is a faster > >>option available. > >> > >>Weak argument, I know, but some instinct in me thinks that the > current > >>mode should remain. > >> > >>Otis > >> > >> > >>--- Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>hui wrote: > >>> > >>>>Index time: > >>>>compound format is 89 seconds slower. > >>>> > >>>>compound format: > >>>>1389507 total milliseconds > >>>>non-compound format: > >>>>1300534 total milliseconds > >>>> > >>>>The index size is 85m with 4 fields only. The files are stored in > >>> > >>>the index. > >>> > >>>>The compound format has only 3 files and the other has 13 files. > >>> > >>>Thanks for performing this benchmark! > >>> > >>>It looks like the compound format is around 7% slower when > indexing. > >>>To > >>>my thinking that's acceptable, given the dramatic reduction in > file > >>>handles. If folks really need maximal indexing performance, then > >>>they > >>>can explicitly disable the compound format. > >>> > >>>Would anyone object to making compound format the default for > Lucene > >>>1.4? This is an incompatible change, but I don't think it should > >>>break > >>>applications. > >>> > >>>Doug > >>> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>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] > >> > >> > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
