On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 13:28 +0100, Colin R wrote: > My question is really regarding index architecture. One big or many small > (with merged big ones)
One difference is that having a single index/collection gives you better ranked searches within each collection. If you only use date/filename sorting, that is of course irrelevant. > In terms of bytes, each photo has a up to 1.5KB of data. So about 20GB for the full index? > Special requirements are search by date range, text, date range and text. > Plus some boolean filtering. All results can be sorted by date or filename. With no faceting, grouping or similar aggregating processing, (re)opening of an index searcher should be very fast. The only thing that takes a moment is the initial date or filename sorting. Asking for minute-level data updates is thus very modest. With the information you have given, you could aim for a few seconds. None of the things you have said gives any cause for concern about performance and even though you have an existing system running and is upgrading to a presumably faster one, you sound concerned. Do you currently have performance problems, and if so, what is your current hardware? - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
