> 3. Have two directories on the searcher. The indexer would then sync to
a tmp
directory and then at run time swap them via a rename once the sync is over.
The downside here is that this will take up 2x disk space on the searcher. The
upside is that the box will only slow down while the rsync is happening.
For maximal search performance, this is your best bet. Disk space is cheap. At some point all newly issued queries start going against the new index, and, pretty soon, you can close and delete the old index. But you never have to stop searching. Disk i/o will spike a bit during the changeover, as the new working set is swapped in.
Note that, if folks are paging through results by re-querying (the standard method) and the index is updated then things can get funky. One approach is to hang onto the old index longer, to make this less likely. In any case, you might want to add an index-id to the search parameters, so that, if a next-page is issued when the index is no longer there you can give some sort of "stale query" error.
PS.. Random question. The performance of the MultiSearcher is Mlog(N) correct?
Where N is the number of documents in the index and M is the number of indexes?
Is this about right?
No.
The added cost of a MultiSearcher is mostly proportional to just M, the number of indexes. The normal cost of searching is still mostly proportional to N, the number of documents. So M+N would probably be more accurate. There is a log(M) here and there, to, e.g., figure out which index a doc id belongs to, but I doubt these are significant.
The significant costs of a MultiSearcher over an IndexSearcher are that it adds more term dictionary reads (one per query term per index) and more seeks (also one per query term per index, or two if you're using phrases).
Doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
