Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-14 Thread Grant Ingersoll
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-13 Thread John Wang
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
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%

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread Jason Rutherglen
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread Mark Miller
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread Marvin Humphrey
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread DM Smith
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread Grant Ingersoll
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread Marvin Humphrey
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread Earwin Burrfoot
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-12 Thread Grant Ingersoll
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-11 Thread Jason Rutherglen
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-11 Thread Marvin Humphrey
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

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-11 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
+1. I never liked having the compound format be the default, since increasing the max # of open file handles is a well documented thing, at least in the UNIX world. Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Solr - Lucene - Nutch - Original Message > From: Grant Ingersoll > To: j

Re: Compound File Default

2010-01-11 Thread Michael McCandless
+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