On Jan 12, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
> But beyond that, Lucene adopted the compound file format default for a reason,
> right? What's changed about the environment that justifies overturning that
> decision?
The history, as I recall, is it used to be off in 1.x. Then, b/c s
gt;
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Mark Miller
> > To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 5:35:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: Compound File Default
> >
> > Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> > > At the same time, seeing how some peopl
Subject: Re: Compound File Default
>
> Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> > At the same time, seeing how some people benchmark systems without tuning
> > them
> and then publish their results, cfs may be safer.
> >
> >
> Though at the same time you get nailed with a 10-15%
I always turn CFS off because it's extra work (no payoff), how's it
possible to run into an out of fd limit with a merge factor of 10?
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
> Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
>> At the same time, seeing how some people benchmark systems without tuning
>> the
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> At the same time, seeing how some people benchmark systems without tuning
> them and then publish their results, cfs may be safer.
>
>
Though at the same time you get nailed with a 10-15% indexing speed hit.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
blish their results, cfs may be safer.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Solr - Lucene - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: Marvin Humphrey
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, January 12, 2010 1:32:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Compound File Default
>
> On Tue
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:05:13AM -0500, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> At any rate, I feel pretty safe assuming no one is running a production
> system on a MBP...
I don't really care whether Lucene defaults to the compound file format or not
(KS does, Lucy will, and that's good enough for me), but i
I'm not sure that it's safe to assume that production use of Lucene is
not on a laptop or that it is always on big iron.
It makes sense that Lucene is embedded in all sorts of desktop
applications that might run on small machines. That certainly describes
the application that I work on.
I'm
My MBP has 7168.
Maybe something like MySQL or other tools modify it, but I'm pretty positive I
didn't.
At any rate, I feel pretty safe assuming no one is running a production system
on a MBP...
I suppose if we wanted to get really fancy, we could, on *NIX systems, exec
ulimit and parse the
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:49:09AM -0500, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> My Mac (non-laptop) reports:
> ulimit -n
> 2560
>
> And I know I didn't change it.
Before I posted, I had a few officemates corroborate. 4 people had 256 --
three on 10.6 and me on 10.5. I think these were all Mac Book Pros. T
256 here (MBP)
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 17:49, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 03:20:17PM -0500, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>> Should we really still be defaulting to true for setUseCompoundFile? Do
>>> people still run out
On Jan 11, 2010, at 4:25 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 03:20:17PM -0500, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> Should we really still be defaulting to true for setUseCompoundFile? Do
>> people still run out of file handles?
>
> Yep. You're going to smack up against that limit pretty
Maybe the default can be conditional on the platform like NIOFSDirectory.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 03:20:17PM -0500, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> Should we really still be defaulting to true for setUseCompoundFile? Do
>> people still run out
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 03:20:17PM -0500, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Should we really still be defaulting to true for setUseCompoundFile? Do
> people still run out of file handles?
Yep. You're going to smack up against that limit pretty quick on Mac OS X:
mar...@smokey:~ $ ulimit -n
256
gt; To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 3:20:17 PM
> Subject: Compound File Default
>
> Should we really still be defaulting to true for setUseCompoundFile? Do
> people
> still run out of file handles? If so, why not have them turn it on, instead
>
+1
I think we should make it Version dependent...
Mike
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Should we really still be defaulting to true for setUseCompoundFile? Do
> people still run out of file handles? If so, why not have them turn it on,
> instead of everyone else ha
Should we really still be defaulting to true for setUseCompoundFile? Do people
still run out of file handles? If so, why not have them turn it on, instead of
everyone else having to turn it off.
-Grant
-
To unsubscribe, e-m
17 matches
Mail list logo
