lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: improve how IndexWriter uses RAM to buffer added documents
Date Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:28:40 GMT

On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:

> "Yonik Seeley" <> wrote:
>> Wow, very nice results Mike!
> Thanks :)  I'm just praying I don't have some sneaky bug making
> the results far better than they really are!!

That's possible, but I'm confident that the model you're using is  
capable of the gains you're seeing.  When I benched KinoSearch a year  
ago against Lucene, KS was getting close, but was still a little  
behind... <>

(: Ironically, the numbers for Lucene on that page are a little  
better than they should be because of a sneaky bug.  I would have  
made updating the results a priority if they'd gone the other way.  :)

... However, Lucene has been tuned by an army of developers over the  
years, while KS is young yet and still had many opportunities for  
optimization.  Current svn trunk for KS is about twice as fast for  
indexing as when I did those benchmarking tests.

I look forward to studying your patch in detail at some point to see  
what you've done differently.  It sounds like you only familiarized  
yourself with the high-level details of how KS has been working,  
yes?  Hopefully, you misunderstood and came up with something better. ;)

Marvin Humphrey
Rectangular Research

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message