On Tuesday, Feb 25, 2003, at 11:48 Europe/Zurich, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
This is strange, or at least counter-intuitive - if you buffer larger parts of data in RAM than the standard implementation does, it should definitely be faster... Let's wait and see what Terry comes up with.
BTW. how large indexes did you use for testing?
A small testing set: around 100 MB.
Also, it could be that the indexing process is bound by some other bottleneck,
Most definitively.
and buffering helps only when searching already existing index.
Ooops... forgot to mention that the purpose of my testing was to test searching... I don't mind indexing speed that much... in any case... more generally I wanted to see if a buffered random access file would help in my peculiar situation... but no noticeable differences in my case one way or another... on the other hand... that could be just me as there is much more than straightforward Lucene indexing/searching going on. Let that not discourage you :-) In any case, Lucene itself is pretty speedy overall. The only bottleneck is index merging in my experience.
Cheers,
PA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
