On Tuesday 25 February 2003 03:48, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > petite_abeille wrote: ... > > Multivalent's phelps.io.BufferedRandomAccessFile... and I'm happy to > > report that... I doesn't seems to make a shred of difference in my > > case... but as always YMMV. > > 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? Also, it could be that > the indexing process is bound by some other bottleneck, and buffering > helps only when searching already existing index.
Perhaps it also depends on platform -- on Linux (for example), all smallish files are very likely to be kept in memory, if accessed often. This because all non-allocated RAM is used for disk buffers automatically. There is still syscall overhead for reading, but compared to actual disk reads it will be much faster. -+ Tatu +- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
