I actually ran a few tests. But seeing similar behaviors.
After removing all the possible variations, this is what I used:
1 Index, doccount is 15,000.
Using FSDirectory, e.g. new IndexSearcher(String path), by default I
think it uses FSDirectory.
each thread is doing 100 iterations of search, e.g.
for (int i=0;i<100;++i){
idxSearcher.search(q);
}
for each thread and each iteration, I am using the same query.
I am timing them the following way:
long start=System.currenTimeInMillis();
for (int i =0;i<threadCount;++i){
thread[i].start();
}
for (int i=0;i<threadCount;++i){
thread[i].join();
}
long duration=System.currenTimeInMillis()-start;
duration numbers I am getting are:
1 thread: 445 ms.
2 threads: 870 ms.
5 threads: 2200 ms.
Pretty much the same numbers you'd get if you are running them sequentially.
Any ideas? Am I doing something wrong?
Thanks advance for all your help
-John
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:06:09 -0800 (PST), Chris Hostetter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : This is what we found:
> :
> : 1 thread, search takes 20 ms.
> :
> : 2 threads, search takes 40 ms.
> :
> : 5 threads, search takes 100 ms.
>
> how big is your index? What are the term frequencies like in your index?
> how many differnt queries did you try? what was the structure of your
> query objects like? were you using a RAMDirectory or an FSDirectory? what
> hardware were you running on?
>
> Is your test application small enough that you can post it to the list?
>
> I haven't done a lot of PMA testing of Lucene, but from what limited
> testing i have done I'm a little suprised at those numbers, you'd get
> results just as good if you ran the queries sequentially.
>
> -Hoss
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
