Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

; Systems > > >> like Solr or Elasticsearch use a transaction log in parallel to > > indexing, > > >> so they commit very seldom. If the system crashes, the changes are > > replayed > > >> from tranlog since last commit. > > >> > > &

Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

t;> from tranlog since last commit. > >> > >> Uwe > >> > >> - > >> Uwe Schindler > >> Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > >> http://www.thetaphi.de > >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > >> > >> > -Original Me

Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

hetaphi.de >> eMail: u...@thetaphi.de >> >> > -Original Message----- >> > From: Rob Audenaerde [mailto:rob.audenae...@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 11:29 AM >> > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org >> > Subject: Re: indexing

Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

mmit. > > Uwe > > - > Uwe Schindler > Achterdiek 19, D-28357 Bremen > http://www.thetaphi.de > eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > > > -Original Message- > > From: Rob Audenaerde [mailto:rob.audenae...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 11:29

RE: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: u...@thetaphi.de > -Original Message- > From: Rob Audenaerde [mailto:rob.audenae...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 11:29 AM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1 > > Hi all

Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

Hi all, Some follow up (sorry for the delay). We built a benchmark in our application, and profiled it (on a smallish data set). What we currently see in the profiler is that in Lucene 7.1 the calls to `commit()` take much longer. The self-time committing in 6.6: 3,215 ms The self-time

Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

Robert: Ah, right. I keep confusing my gmail lists "lucene dev" and "lucene list" Siiih. On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Adrien Grand wrote: > If you have sparse data, I would have expected index time to *decrease*, > not increase. > > Can you enable the IW

Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

If you have sparse data, I would have expected index time to *decrease*, not increase. Can you enable the IW info stream and share flush + merge times to see where indexing time goes? If you can run with a profiler, this might also give useful information. Le jeu. 18 janv. 2018 à 11:23, Rob

Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

Erick I don't think solr was mentioned here. On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: > My first question is always "are you running the Solr CPUs flat out?". > My guess in this case is that the indexing client is the same and the > problem is in Solr, but

Re: indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

My first question is always "are you running the Solr CPUs flat out?". My guess in this case is that the indexing client is the same and the problem is in Solr, but it's worth checking whether the clients are just somehow not delivering docs as fast as they were before. My suspicion is that the

indexing performance 6.6 vs 7.1

Hi all, We recently upgraded from Lucene 6.6 to 7.1. We see a significant drop in indexing performace. We have a-typical use of Lucene, as we (also) index some database tables and add all the values as AssociatedFacetFields as well. This allows us to create pivot tables on search results really