The speed of indexing does matter even it is the incremental one. In my case index is rebuilt completely on each client from updated database and we can't track what changed due to update mechanism and 5 minutes instead 30 make a difference If Lucene on a server do we care about memory footprint nowadays ? I don't think searching became either faster or slower with Lucene 2.3.1 Michael
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Derrick Okundaye < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The speed of the index does not matter as much as the speed of the search > and memory footprint. What are the figures been returned? > > I ask because l am (still) using 2.0 for both indexing and searching > because of the smaller memory footprint. > > Regards, > Derrick > > Derrick Okundaye > > .Net Developer > > > > Thomas Telford Limited > > 1 Heron Quay > > London E14 4JD > > Tel: +44 (0)20 7665 2456 > > Fax: +44 (0)20 7537 2529 > > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > www.thomastelford.com > > > > Civil engineers at the heart of society, delivering sustainable development > through knowledge, skills and professional expertise. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 30 October 2008 01:13 > To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed > > I didn't really consider "a couple of thousands" as a big index. > Also by ( difference , size ) I meant not difference in index size ( 2.1 > and 2.3.1 ) , but what would be indexing speed difference ( 2.1 and 2.3.1 > ) as index grows, kind of function diff = F( index_size). > > 1000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3 > 100000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3 > > 1000000 short records from database time_lucene2.1 time_lucene2.3 > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Pavlo Zahozhenko < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've got an amazing 10x performance improvement for our small development > > index (a couple of megabytes). However, it fails to index a couple of > > thousands documents on production, so I had to revert to old good 2.0 > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Floyd Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my > > production > > > use. > > > > > > Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts. > > > > > > Floyd > > > > > > 2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing > > > with > > > > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed > statistics > > ( > > > > index size , difference ). > > > > > > > > TIA > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan > service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more > information on a proactive anti-virus service working > around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com > ________________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > This communication, and the information it contains: (a) is intended for > the person(s) or organisation(s) named above and for no other persons or > organisations and (b) may be confidential and protected by law. Unauthorised > use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful. > > Thomas Telford Ltd > Company Registration No: 2556636 > Registered Office: 1-7 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA. > > This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan > service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more > information on a proactive anti-virus service working > around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com > ________________________________________________________________________ >
