Hey Frank,

Lucene is lazily loaded, so even if you're using a RAMDirectory, the 
reader/writer won't get fully filled out until you do a query. It only takes 
one query though to warm it up.

Hope that helps,
-Ben

--- On Thu, 1/20/11, Frank Yu <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Frank Yu <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.9 Uses Single Processor under Stress
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 5:03 PM
> DIGY,
> 
> Do I still need to warm up the searcher if the whole Lucene
> index is loaded
> into the memory?
> 
> Also if I run the warm up, how many queries are needed for
> the warm up?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Digy [mailto:[email protected]]
> 
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:45 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.9 Uses Single Processor under
> Stress
> 
> You can also try to warm up the searcher before measuring
> the performance.
> 
> DIGY
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anders Lybecker [mailto:[email protected]]
> 
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:20 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.9 Uses Single Processor under
> Stress
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Do you open the IndexReader/IndexSearcher in readonly
> mode?
> 
> :-)
> Anders
> 
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Frank Yu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I met a strange situation that the Lucene.Net used
> only 1 processor on a
> > quad dual-core processors machine when the search load
> exceeded a certain
> > threshold (i.e., 35 searches per second). It took a
> few minutes before the
> > load got distributed over all processors. When the
> load was below the
> > threshold (i.e., 20 searches per second), all
> processors got used evenly.
> >
> > The used Lucene.net is v2.9 and the index size is
> about 4GB with 15
> > millions
> > of documents. There was no index update and the load
> was search only
> > without
> > any index update.
> >
> > Has anyone seen this kind of behavior before?
> >
> > Thanks a lot,
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 


      

Reply via email to