[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9662?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17411204#comment-17411204
]
Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-9662:
--------------------------------------------
{quote}To increase its concurrency for nightly benchmark, I assume a change can
be made in
[luceneutil|https://github.com/mikemccand/luceneutil/blob/0084387e001b426075eb828f43ad0c4e955e9280/src/python/nightlyBench.py#L695-L704]
to pass in the flag? If so, I can open a PR for it as well!
{quote}
Ahh no need – I already did that, and added annotation to nightly benchmarks!
Switching from 4 to 16 concurrent threads for the nightly {{CheckIndex}}
benchmark [further sped it up from ~112 seconds down to ~77
seconds|https://home.apache.org/~mikemccand/lucenebench/checkIndexTime.html]:
woot!
> CheckIndex should be concurrent
> -------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-9662
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9662
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael McCandless
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 18h 20m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> I am watching a nightly benchmark run slowly run its {{CheckIndex}} step,
> using a single core out of the 128 cores the box has.
> It seems like this is an embarrassingly parallel problem, if the index has
> multiple segments, and would finish much more quickly on concurrent hardware
> if we did "thread per segment".
> If wanted to get even further concurrency, each part of the Lucene index that
> is checked is also independent, so it could be "thread per segment per part".
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
