Dror Matalon wrote:
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:38:48PM -0800, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
Would there be any performance improvement in query throughput and
latency if locking were disabled for readonly indexes?
It doesnt' seem like it makes sense to worry about locking if you know
for SURE that the index will NEVER be updated again.
I'm noticing this problem now. We are running a live indexer which does
a commit every N documents (right now 100,000) and then swaps the new
index into the system live. This index is never again updated and we
use a multisearcher. We then do index merges after a while into new
indexes to keep performance high and reduce the number of indexes.
Sounds quite familiar. One question though, when you say "swaps" the new
index, what do you mean? It's one area where locking might matter. If
you just use a multisearcher and add the new index I'm guessing that it
should work fine.
It's a safe operation.. It does a directory rename and then is added to
the multi-searcher. It's sychronized.. and 100% safe ;)
I would assume that removing this lock could increase performance
especially to allow multiple concurrent searches on the same data.
There was talk about providing that in an upcoming version. Until then
you can try RODirectory:
http://www.csita.unige.it/software/free/lucene/
Cool.. thanks.
--
NewsMonster - http://www.newsmonster.org/
Kevin A. Burton, Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965
AIM - sfburtonator, Web - http://www.peerfear.org/
GPG fingerprint: 4D20 40A0 C734 307E C7B4 DCAA 0303 3AC5 BD9D 7C4D
IRC - freenode.net #infoanarchy | #p2p-hackers | #newsmonster
