mikemccand commented on PR #13951: URL: https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/13951#issuecomment-2535873988
@mdmarshmallow thank you for benchmarking this change! I know that is tricky and `luceneutil` is not exactly simple to use even when you don't have to make code changes ;) I think it's fine that we can't measure a performance gain? Achieving the same performance as N (2 or 5 in your tests) fully separate `IndexWriter`s is great ([Hippocratic Oath: "first do no harm"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath))! The goal here is to provide a simple way for users to dynamically share a limited RAM buffer with N `IndexWriter`s... The only case I'd expect to see a performance win is if the rate of indexing is very unbalanced across the five shards ... e.g. you have five`IndexWriter`s but only one of them is actively indexing at red-line (saturate CPU) throughput. With your change, that IW should be able to use (nearly) all of the RAM buffer, but prior to your change users had to do something coarse like divide RAM buffer statically up-front by five. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org
