Opened LUCENE-2086.
Mike
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> +1
>
> I'll open an issue.
>
> Mike
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Yonik Seeley
> wrote:
>> Thanks Bogdan, I've been meaning to bring this up.
>> Solr used a TreeMap in the past (when it handled it's own
+1
I'll open an issue.
Mike
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> Thanks Bogdan, I've been meaning to bring this up.
> Solr used a TreeMap in the past (when it handled it's own deletes) for
> the same exact reason. In my profiling, I've also seen applyDeletes()
> taking the bu
Thanks Bogdan, I've been meaning to bring this up.
Solr used a TreeMap in the past (when it handled it's own deletes) for
the same exact reason. In my profiling, I've also seen applyDeletes()
taking the bulk of the time with small/simple document indexing.
So we should definitely go in sorted ord
Hi,
One of the use case of my application involves updating the index with
10 to 10k docs every few minutes. Because we maintain a PK for each
doc we have to use IndexWriter.updateDocument to be consistent.
The average time for an update when we commit every 10k docs is around
17ms (the IndexWrit
