[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10125?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17420844#comment-17420844
]
Uwe Schindler commented on LUCENE-10125:
----------------------------------------
One small detail: BufferedOutputStream has a private flushBuffer() that only
flushes buffer. The public flush() also flushes output stream. I don't think
this is a big issue, because we need to flush anyways after 8192 bytes, so
flushing file output stream should not hurt. If it is a problem, we may need
to add a private clone of super.flushBuffer().
So [~jpountz]: If you could compare the speed It would be helpful, because you
have the benchmark already setup.
> Investigate indexing throughput regression on NYC Taxis between 2021-04-12
> and 2021-05-24
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-10125
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10125
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Adrien Grand
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: LUCENE-10125_hack.patch
>
> Time Spent: 10m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> There's been a significant drop in indexing throughput between 2021-04-12 and
> 2021-05-24 on the NYC Taxis benchmark. Unfortunately several suspects have
> been merged during that period of time so we might need to git bisect to
> figure out which one is responsible for the regression. Interestingly the
> sorted index looks less affected than the non-sorted indexes.
> https://home.apache.org/~mikemccand/lucenebench/sparseResults.html#index_throughput
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
