I ran some tests changing TermInfosWriter.INDEX_INTERVAL to 16. On my application (which does a lot on top of lucene - including SQL transactions and so on) I won 10% percent time. I suppose this could be a bigger improvements in other applications, because the search with Lucene is not 100% of my application.
The index used for this test is 720 MB - FSDirectory on Fedora 1 the .tii file is 3398 Kb in the modified version against 488Kb in the original (INDEX_INTERVAL=128) Has anyone tried changing this value? Do you get similar results? Julien ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julien Nioche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lucene Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 10:04 AM Subject: Re: Optimizing for long queries? > Hello Drew, > > I don't think it's in the FAQ. > > 1 - What you could do is to sort your query terms by ascending alphabetic > order. In my case it improved a little bit the performance. It could be > interesting to know how it worked in your case. > > 2- Another solution is to play with TermInfosWriter.INDEX_INTERVAL at > indexation time. I quote Doug : > > "..., try reducing TermInfosWriter.INDEX_INTERVAL. You'll > have to re-create your indexes each time you change this constant. You > might try a value like 16. This would keep the number of terms in > memory from being too huge (1 of 16 terms), but would reduce the average > number scanned from 64 to 8, which would be substantial. Tell me how > this works. If it makes a big difference, then perhaps we should make > this parameter more easily changeable." > > Have you used a profiler on your application? This could be useful to spot > possible improvments. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Drew Farris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 8:24 PM > Subject: Optimizing for long queries? > > > > Apologies if this is a FAQ, but I didn't have much luck searching the > > list archives for answers on this subject: > > > > I'm using Lucene in a context where we have frequently have queries > > that search for as many as 30-50 terms in a single field. Does anyone > > have any thoughts concerning ways optimize Lucene for queries of these > > lengths? > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
