On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 08:52 +0200, Maciej Klimczuk wrote:
> I did some testing with 3.1.0 demo on Windows and encountered some strange
> bahaviour. I tried to index ~6 small text documents using the demo.
> - First trial took about 18 minutes.
> - Second and third trial took about 2 minutes.
On Monday 04 February 2008 21:51:39 Michael McCandless wrote:
> Even pre-2.3, you should have seen gains by adding threads, if indeed
> your hardware has good concurrency.
>
> And definitely with the changes in 2.3, you should see gains by
> adding threads.
With regards to this, I have been wonder
Even pre-2.3, you should have seen gains by adding threads, if indeed
your hardware has good concurrency.
And definitely with the changes in 2.3, you should see gains by
adding threads.
Note that as you add threads, the "sweet spot" for RAM buffer size
increases. Ie, make the RAM buffe
Note that in particular, we use the StandardTokenizer as part of our
analyzer
chain, which means it has the switch from the JavaCC version to the JFlex
based
code, which I'm betting is a substantial part of that speedup.
-jake
On Feb 3, 2008 2:11 PM, Briggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Damn, r
The test in which we got the 11X speedup? That was single threaded. I
haven't yet found a way to make multithreaded (shared IndexWriter) indexing
perform with any better speed than singlethreaded, so that code is not
enabled in our tests. Do you think that 2.3 would better take advantage of
mult
Hi Jake.
Was the test conducted with a single indexing thread, or multiple ones ?
Jake Mannix wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> I know you lucene devs did a lot of work on indexing performance in 2.3,
> and I just tested it out last thursday, so I thought I'd let you know how
> it
> fared:
>
> On
Yeah, I should have mentioned - this was merely with a jar replacement, we
haven't gotten around to doing fun 2.3-related stuff like making sure our
domain-specific tokenizers use the next(Token), as well as making sure set
all of our buffersizes by RAM used.
We tried multithreading the process, a
Damn, really? I haven't had the opportunity to test this yet. Has
anyone else seen this kind of improvement?
On Feb 3, 2008 2:57 PM, Jake Mannix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
> I know you lucene devs did a lot of work on indexing performance in 2.3,
> and I just tested it out last
Awesome! We are glad to hear that :)
You might be able to make it even faster with the steps here:
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ImproveIndexingSpeed
Mike
Jake Mannix wrote:
Hello all,
I know you lucene devs did a lot of work on indexing performance
in 2.3,
and I just tested i
On 10-Sep-07, at 5:59 AM, Laxmilal Menaria wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I have created a Index Application using Java lucene 2.0 in java and
Lucene.Net 2.0 in VB.net. Both application have same logic. But
when I have
indexed a database with 14000 rows from both application and same
machine, I
sur
On Monday 10 September 2007 14:59, Laxmilal Menaria wrote:
> I have created a Index Application using Java lucene 2.0 in java and
> Lucene.Net 2.0 in VB.net. Both application have same logic. But when I
> have indexed a database with 14000 rows from both application and same
> machine, I surprised
I have just commented the Index writer method and check the performance, it
shows me appx 10 sec. to process all rows. and againg uncommented that its
show 4 minutes.
On 9/7/07, Chris Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is it repeatable? Maybe the database is slower during that time.
>
> Myself didn
Have tested both Java Lucene 2.0 and Lucene.Net 2.0, but now
Lucene.Net 2.1in development.
On 9/7/07, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Your "to" field on the email makes me wonder if you are using .NET or
> Java...
>
> On Sep 7, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Laxmilal Menaria wrote:
>
> > Hello e
Is it repeatable? Maybe the database is slower during that time.
Myself didn't any major slowness when upgrading to Lucene 2.2.
--
Chris Lu
-
Instant Scalable Full-Text Search On Any Database/Application
site: http://www.dbsight.net
demo: http://search.dbsight.com
Lucene
Your "to" field on the email makes me wonder if you are using .NET or
Java...
On Sep 7, 2007, at 8:40 AM, Laxmilal Menaria wrote:
Hello everyone,
I have indexed a mysql database using Lucene2.0. It was taking less
than 2
minutes for 14000 records. Then I indexed the same data using
Lucen
Here: http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2003/03/05/lucene.html
- Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:24:27 AM
Subject: RE: Indexing speed
maxBufferedDocs parameters. You can also look for my article about
maxBufferedDocs parameters. You can also look for my article about indexing
with Lucene (link in the Wiki), which includes code for playing with various
parameters and explains what's going on, etc.
Sorry, but where this link ?
Where placed your article ? Please, give me url.
-
maxBufferedDocs parameters. You can also look for my article about indexing
with Lucene (link in the Wiki), which includes code for playing with various
parameters and explains what's going on, etc.
Sorry, but where this link ?
Hi Revati,
If you have Lucene in Action, look at Chapter 2, ection 2.7 -
http://www.lucenebook.com/search?query=index+performance+control
If you don't have LIA, look at IndexWriter class and its mergeFactor and
maxBufferedDocs parameters. You can also look for my article about indexing
with Lu
revati joshi wrote:
hi all,
I just wnted to know how to increase the speed of indexing of files .
I tried it by using Multithreading approach but couldn't get much better
performance.
It was same as it is in usual sequential indexing.Is there any other approach
to get better Inde
20 matches
Mail list logo
