e at first
running than second time.
This is why the buffered indexing runs faster when ram indexing prior to
buffered .
> -Original Message-
> From: Flik Shen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:29 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject:
do we consume less time when we take more actions based on same
previous action?
-Original Message-
From: yueyu lin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:38 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: An interesting thing
1. Buffered index is using ram. They are
(int i = 0; i < numDocs; i++) {
StringBuffer doc = new StringBuffer(wordsPerDoc);
for (int j = 0; j < wordsPerDoc; j++) {
doc.append("Bibamus ");
}
docs.add(doc.toString());
}
return docs;
}
}
==
Lucene and I am reading the book "Lucene In Action".
>
> Just as that we know, there are two kinds of directory to hold index,
one
> is File System and the other is RAM.
>
> There is a sample to compare performances of these two kind
directories
> and there is also a p
In Windows XP can't you change the registry to use only phyiscal RAM?
- Original Message -
From: "yueyu lin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: An interesting thing
In some OS, the ram is not only "RAM". The vir
a piece of code about "Batch indexing by using
RAMDirectory as a buffer".
When I follow some samples, I found an interesting thing about indexing
performance.
I combine these two pieces of codes and time each kind directory indexing.
(Please refer the attachment for details processes
of code about “Batch indexing
by using RAMDirectory as a buffer”.
When I follow some samples, I found an interesting
thing about indexing performance.
I combine these two pieces of codes and time each kind
directory indexing. (Please refer the attachment for details processes)
I load 3000 docs
