Alan Tanaman wrote:
Agree about the performance degradation (estimated at 5-10% by Gospodnetic et Hatcher), which only affects the indexing time, not the search time, but we would put this as a clear caveat in the conf file.
Note: this is just for the time-related degradation. Temporary space usage is 200% higher for compound indexes ...
We'd rather the incremental index process be a little slower (our big performance problem is on parsing anyway), but that the file system work be a little more manageable. Are there any objections?
I don't object to the idea of having this as an option, defaulting to non-compound index, with a clear comment in the config file about this tradeoff.
-- Best regards, Andrzej Bialecki <>< ___. ___ ___ ___ _ _ __________________________________ [__ || __|__/|__||\/| Information Retrieval, Semantic Web ___|||__|| \| || | Embedded Unix, System Integration http://www.sigram.com Contact: info at sigram dot com
