Re: Current TODO

> We're already using the lowest-level API Lucene has to offer for this,
> so our matching is just about as fast as we can get it.  The bulk of the
> time at this point is extracting data from the matches and sending them
> over the wire.  Maybe we could have a "fast path" which extracts and
> returns only URIs which clients would have to roundtrip to get more data
> (this is how we do snippets), but we'd need to try it to be sure.

I made the same observation. Lucene is quite fast and searching the
index isnt quite a bottleneck. There are other activities after
beagled gets the search results like
- getting the full-path of the file and checking if the file is
present - involves disk access
- sorting results - more about this later
- hit filters - post processing of hits
and some more stuff ...

If you have a hot lucene index i.e. if you search again for the same
term right after one search, and dont ask for snippets ... you can
check the speed from deskbar or any libbeagle-client (use the example
in libbeagle source).

Distributed index, as Joe suggested earlier, would make sense. Heavily
populated filesystem trees could get their own index. That will make
things faster.

Joe, just curious. How long does your search take on a hot index with
any c-client ?

Debajyoti Bera @
beagle / KDE fan
Mandriva / Inspiron-1100 user

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]