Thanks for your feedback, we'll get to work on a patch in a day or two. The config comment will be clear in stating the tradeoff.
Best regards, Alan _________________________ Alan Tanaman iDNA Solutions -----Original Message----- From: Andrzej Bialecki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 January 2007 14:06 To: nutch-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Creating Lucence Compound Index 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Nutch-developers mailing list Nutch-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nutch-developers
