lucene at mikemccandless
Jul 28, 2008, 2:19 AM
Post #6 of 6
(598 views)
Permalink
|
|
Re: How to use lucene for high search performance ?
[In reply to]
|
|
Yes you can, and that should be fast.
Another thing to try is an SSD -- look at the "Lucene performance
issues" thread on java-user.
Mike
On Jul 27, 2008, at 11:54 PM, 王建新 wrote:
> Thanks a lot.
>
> I have an idea, Can I use lucene on a 64bits VM?
> In the condition, I can load all index files to ram. Then no io
> operation, I can execute concurrent search in thread pool.
>
> Its performance will be better?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael McCandless" <lucene[at]mikemccandless.com>
> To: <general[at]lucene.apache.org>
> Cc: <java-user[at]lucene.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 4:59 AM
> Subject: Re: How to use lucene for high search performance ?
>
>
>
> Let's move this thread to java-user (CC'd).
>
> 王建新 wrote:
>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> If the index files are very big(10G), I cannot load them to ram in
>> one process.
>
> Ahh OK.
>
>> Shoud I use MutilSearcher to load index files with serval processes?
>> How about its performance?
>
> MultiSearcher alone doesn't really scale up -- it just lets you
> combine the results of many Searchables.
>
> Maybe you mean ParallelMlultiSearcher? That class uses a separate
> thread to search each Searchable, so if you are on a multi core/cpu
> machine that should give a net reduction in latency of each search
> (though I don't have any experience here!).
>
>> by the way, I think only .frq and .tis files need to load in ram.
>> And it can save some ram.
>
> You mean you don't use any positions information? Really the OS
> should do the right thing for you -- it should only cache into its IO
> cache those files that you actually use after which searches should be
> fast.
>
> Mike
>
>>
>> roy
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Michael McCandless" <lucene[at]mikemccandless.com>
>> To: <general[at]lucene.apache.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 6:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: How to use lucene for high search performance ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Try InstantiatedIndexWriter/Reader (under contrib/instantiated)?
>>
>> It consumes more RAM than the RAMDirectory approach, but is faster
>> performance.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> PS -- this sort of question should go to java-user in the future.
>>
>> 王建新 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> If I use lucene to execute many search requests at one time, the
>>> io operation will be the bottleneck of the performance.
>>> So I use RAMDirectory to avoid io operation.
>>> But I found RAMDirectory cannot raise the performance much if the
>>> index is big( about 1.2G).
>>> Could anyone give me any advice to raise the performance for
>>> concurrent search operation?
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> roy
|
