A new version of the Lucene FAQ is available at
http://www.lucene.com/faq
It has all but the 'performance' section. Please forward to me
any feedback, comment or suggestion you may have.
Thanks for David Duddleston for reviewing and editing the
Indexing section.
We still need volunteers for editing the other sections, mostly for grammar,
spelllling and style. If you would like to help, please drop me a note.
Tal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of W. Eliot
> Kimber
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:40 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Lucene-users] Performance/Scalability Benchmarks for Lucene
>
>
> All,
>
> We have integrated Lucene into a larger content management system. We
> need to be able to quantify the performance and scalability of Lucene so
> that we can compare it to some commercial systems that we also have
> access to (Convera, in particular).
>
> I searched the archives and didn't find any references to existing
> benchmark tests or results for Lucene. Are there any? We are looking at
> peak scales on the order of 100,000 or 1,000,000 separate indexed files
> being accessed by 10,000 concurrent users (a system with 100,000
> registered users of whom 10% are active at any given time). Users expect
> 5-10 second response times for a simple query (e.g., all docs containing
> the work "spam"). I don't personally know if Convera, for example, can
> meet these scales, but there is some expectation within DataChannel that
> it can (it is currently used with the DataChannel Server portal
> product). We need to know if Lucene can be made to work at these scales
> or, if not, what it's upper scale limits are and/or what would need to
> be done to it to provide the scalability characteristics we're looking
> for.
>
> Of course, we have other lower-scale use cases where we have no doubt
> that Lucene will perform very well.
>
> If you're curious: we've integrated Lucene into a generic CORBA-based
> full-text framework that allows our Python-based versioning content
> management system to use any full-text indexer integrated through the
> framework. We chose Lucene as the first integration because it is open
> source, came well recommended, and appeared to be (and was in fact) the
> quickest way for us to get indexing functionality implemented.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Eliot
>
> --
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> W. Eliot Kimber | Lead Brain
>
> 1016 La Posada Dr. | Suite 240 | Austin TX 78752
> T 512.656.4139 | F 512.419.1860 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> w w w . d a t a c h a n n e l . c o m
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lucene-users mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lucene-users
>
_______________________________________________
Lucene-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lucene-users
