I've tried to use it with read-only mode and it looks like it's even worse
right now.

I must admit that we're abusing the indexing a bit by commiting after each
document addition, but still when there's no reader open, each document is
indexed in about 30-50ms and when there's a read-only reader open then each
document is indexed in about 150-500ms.
Why should an open reader affect the commit process so deeply?

I wonder if no one encountered this phenomena before.


On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Matt Honeycutt <mbhoneyc...@gmail.com>wrote:

> 2.4 does indeed support read-only mode. I don't know how much it will
> help, but I would definitely try it.
>
> On 11/14/09, Eran Sevi <erans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm still using version 2.4 so I think there's still no read only mode.
> > Is there no other way to prevent this slow down in previous versions?
> >
> > Eran.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Michael Garski
> > <mgar...@myspace-inc.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Eran,
> >>
> >> What version of Lucene are you using?  Are you opening the IndexReader
> >> in read-only mode?
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Eran Sevi [mailto:erans...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:06 AM
> >> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: IndexWriter is slow when reader is open
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> I'm using Lucene.Net 2.4 and I just noticed that when I index documents
> >> while there's at least one IndexReader open on that index (even without
> >> doing anything), the indexing speed is slower by a factor of 3 to 5.
> >> When
> >> closing the reader, the indexing speed goes back to normal.
> >> I'm not doing any deletes, only adds.
> >>
> >>  My index is going to be updated regularly and there's going to be a
> >> reader/searcher in use almost all the time so this might be a big
> >> problem
> >> for me.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have a clue if this is normal behavior? why does it happen
> >> and
> >> how can I avoid such a big loss in performance?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Eran.
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to