Scott, I don't believe the index size of 138MB is your issue. We have multiple indexes close to 1GB and it's super fast. In fact we didn't notice any performance degradation as the index grew from 100MB to almost a gig. Our search engine performs thousands of searches per second on a quad core server with 32GB of ram...and the server is not even busy.
Do you retrieve field values stored in the index using doc Id? That, I found, is the most common performance issue. Thanks, Art On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Scott Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, I’m a bit of a newb when it comes to Lucene, but I am in need of > some sage counsel.**** > > ** ** > > I have an application that uses the Lucene engine to index various items. > We upgraded to Lucene 2.9.2 and we now find that on a re-index of a > significantly large project, our index size has doubled (from roughly 73MB > to 137MB). This causes significant performance issues especially as we have > written a custom Directory that queries the index from a SQL Database > instead of a disk file of RAM index.**** > > ** ** > > I was just wondering if anyone knows there would be such a huge increase > in index size, and if there are any options/settings we might be able to > change to reduce the size of the index?**** > > ** ** > > Thanks heaps.**** > > ** ** > > Scott Baldwin Technical Architect**** > > *QSR International Pty Ltd* > 2nd Floor, 651 Doncaster Road | Doncaster Victoria 3108 Australia > T +61 3 9840 4934 F +61 3 9840 1500 > [email protected] | www.qsrinternational.com **** > > *Please consider the environment before printing this email.***** > > [image: Description: cid:[email protected]]**** > ------------------------------ > > *Disclaimer* > This transmission may contain information which is confidential and > privileged and intended only for the addressee. If you are not the > addressee you may not use, disseminate or copy this information. If you > have received this information in error please notify the sender > immediately. Thank you. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
