Hi Scott, I can only tell you from my perspective that our upgrade from 2.1
to 2.9.2 did not cause any major increase in index size.
We also move some of our data types from string to use the decimal and
integer radix formats along the way and that may have compensated for some
increases if they occurred at all. So in summary we did not notice any
appreciable increase in the index size, I would further suggest that you
look in the java forum's for such issues as the index format is compatible
between both .NET and Java. If there was a dramatic increase in the index
size it would have been noted and explained there.
Kind Regards
Noel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Baldwin
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 8:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Lucene upgrade causes significant slow down
Hi again all, can someone just confirm or deny the possibility that
upgrading from 2.4.1 to 2.9.2 may cause a significant increase in the size
of the index when re-indexed?
We are seeing significant index size increases for indexes in some cases
(not all).
Thanks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Svensson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2012 10:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lucene upgrade causes significant slow down
Hi,
Export your database-based directory into a normal filesystem (using
Directory.Copy), and open it in Luke[1]. The Files tab will show what the
different files are used for, and which ones belong to old commits and can
be removed.
Have you tried the latest version; 2.9.4?
// Simon
[1] https://code.google.com/p/luke/
On 2012-05-29 12:01, Scott Baldwin 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]
<mailto:[email protected]>
|www.qsrinternational.com <http://www.qsrinternational.com/>
*Please consider the environment before printing this email.*
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.
