You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@lucenenet.apache.org by Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com> on 2008/10/29 09:37:21 UTC
Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing with
Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed statistics (
index size , difference ).
TIA
Michael
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Jokin Cuadrado <jo...@gmail.com>.
The search speed it's not addressed in this release, so it's almost
the same. But as you have a better control of the index incremental
updates and optimization process, you could take advantage and have a
better optimized index that will result in better search figures.
As of the memory footprint, I never have problems with the 2.1
version, what are the differences between 2.0 and 2.1?
Jokin.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Derrick Okundaye
<De...@thomastelford.com> wrote:
> The speed of the index does not matter as much as the speed of the search and memory footprint. What are the figures been returned?
>
> I ask because l am (still) using 2.0 for both indexing and searching because of the smaller memory footprint.
>
> Regards,
> Derrick
>
> Derrick Okundaye
>
> .Net Developer
RE: Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
As in Java version:
"Apache Lucene 2.1 includes index format changes that are not readable by
older
versions of Lucene. Lucene 2.1 can both read and update older Lucene
indexes.
Adding to an index with an older format will cause it to be converted to the
newer
Format"
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Ng [mailto:patrickng@jobsdb.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 4:18 AM
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
Hi DIGY,
Thanks. And I assume it's compatible with existing index built using
2.0?
Thanks,
- Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 8:13 PM
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
I have been using it in production env. for a long time without a
problem.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Ng [mailto:patrickng@jobsdb.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 7:01 AM
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
Hi,
I am planning to upgrade my code to Lucene.Net 2.1. From several
discussion threads it seems like Lucene.Net 2.1 is never officially
released. Can I assume that 2.1 is mature enough for production?
Anyone has any concern?
Thanks,
- Patrick
RE: Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
Posted by Patrick Ng <pa...@jobsdb.com>.
Hi DIGY,
Thanks. And I assume it's compatible with existing index built using
2.0?
Thanks,
- Patrick
-----Original Message-----
From: Digy [mailto:digydigy@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 8:13 PM
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
I have been using it in production env. for a long time without a
problem.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Ng [mailto:patrickng@jobsdb.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 7:01 AM
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
Hi,
I am planning to upgrade my code to Lucene.Net 2.1. From several
discussion threads it seems like Lucene.Net 2.1 is never officially
released. Can I assume that 2.1 is mature enough for production?
Anyone has any concern?
Thanks,
- Patrick
RE: Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
Posted by Digy <di...@gmail.com>.
I have been using it in production env. for a long time without a problem.
DIGY
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Ng [mailto:patrickng@jobsdb.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 7:01 AM
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
Hi,
I am planning to upgrade my code to Lucene.Net 2.1. From several
discussion threads it seems like Lucene.Net 2.1 is never officially
released. Can I assume that 2.1 is mature enough for production?
Anyone has any concern?
Thanks,
- Patrick
Lucene.Net 2.1 officially ready for production?
Posted by Patrick Ng <pa...@jobsdb.com>.
Hi,
I am planning to upgrade my code to Lucene.Net 2.1. From several
discussion threads it seems like Lucene.Net 2.1 is never officially
released. Can I assume that 2.1 is mature enough for production?
Anyone has any concern?
Thanks,
- Patrick
RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Derrick Okundaye <De...@thomastelford.com>.
I don't have to rebuild my index from stratch, only incrementally, so that is where l am coming from.
But as for the memory footprint, you will start to care when your index size is over 2GB (and growing), it has a web interface and you start having OutOfMemoryExceptions being thrown that shut down IIS, as l experienced for a long time when l used 1.9 and 2.0 without the patches to close serious memory leaks.
Derrick Okundaye
.Net Developer
Thomas Telford Limited
1 Heron Quay
London E14 4JD
Tel: +44 (0)20 7665 2456
Fax: +44 (0)20 7537 2529
E-mail: derrick.okundaye@thomastelford.com
www.thomastelford.com
Civil engineers at the heart of society, delivering sustainable development through knowledge, skills and professional expertise.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 October 2008 11:20
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
The speed of indexing does matter even it is the incremental one. In my case
index is rebuilt completely on each client from updated database and we
can't track what changed due to update mechanism and 5 minutes instead 30
make a difference
If Lucene on a server do we care about memory footprint nowadays ? I don't
think searching became either faster or slower with Lucene 2.3.1
Michael
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Derrick Okundaye <
Derrick.Okundaye@thomastelford.com> wrote:
> The speed of the index does not matter as much as the speed of the search
> and memory footprint. What are the figures been returned?
>
> I ask because l am (still) using 2.0 for both indexing and searching
> because of the smaller memory footprint.
>
> Regards,
> Derrick
>
> Derrick Okundaye
>
> .Net Developer
>
>
>
> Thomas Telford Limited
>
> 1 Heron Quay
>
> London E14 4JD
>
> Tel: +44 (0)20 7665 2456
>
> Fax: +44 (0)20 7537 2529
>
> E-mail: derrick.okundaye@thomastelford.com
>
>
>
> www.thomastelford.com
>
>
>
> Civil engineers at the heart of society, delivering sustainable development
> through knowledge, skills and professional expertise.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com]
> Sent: 30 October 2008 01:13
> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
>
> I didn't really consider "a couple of thousands" as a big index.
> Also by ( difference , size ) I meant not difference in index size ( 2.1
> and 2.3.1 ) , but what would be indexing speed difference ( 2.1 and 2.3.1
> ) as index grows, kind of function diff = F( index_size).
>
> 1000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3
> 100000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3
>
> 1000000 short records from database time_lucene2.1 time_lucene2.3
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Pavlo Zahozhenko <
> pavlozahozhenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've got an amazing 10x performance improvement for our small development
> > index (a couple of megabytes). However, it fails to index a couple of
> > thousands documents on production, so I had to revert to old good 2.0
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Floyd Wu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my
> > production
> > > use.
> > >
> > > Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts.
> > >
> > > Floyd
> > >
> > > 2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing
> > > with
> > > > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed
> statistics
> > (
> > > > index size , difference ).
> > > >
> > > > TIA
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
> service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more
> information on a proactive anti-virus service working
> around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> This communication, and the information it contains: (a) is intended for
> the person(s) or organisation(s) named above and for no other persons or
> organisations and (b) may be confidential and protected by law. Unauthorised
> use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful.
>
> Thomas Telford Ltd
> Company Registration No: 2556636
> Registered Office: 1-7 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA.
>
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
> service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more
> information on a proactive anti-virus service working
> around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
This communication, and the information it contains: (a) is intended for the person(s) or organisation(s) named above and for no other persons or organisations and (b) may be confidential and protected by law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful.
Thomas Telford Ltd
Company Registration No: 2556636
Registered Office: 1-7 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA.
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>.
The speed of indexing does matter even it is the incremental one. In my case
index is rebuilt completely on each client from updated database and we
can't track what changed due to update mechanism and 5 minutes instead 30
make a difference
If Lucene on a server do we care about memory footprint nowadays ? I don't
think searching became either faster or slower with Lucene 2.3.1
Michael
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Derrick Okundaye <
Derrick.Okundaye@thomastelford.com> wrote:
> The speed of the index does not matter as much as the speed of the search
> and memory footprint. What are the figures been returned?
>
> I ask because l am (still) using 2.0 for both indexing and searching
> because of the smaller memory footprint.
>
> Regards,
> Derrick
>
> Derrick Okundaye
>
> .Net Developer
>
>
>
> Thomas Telford Limited
>
> 1 Heron Quay
>
> London E14 4JD
>
> Tel: +44 (0)20 7665 2456
>
> Fax: +44 (0)20 7537 2529
>
> E-mail: derrick.okundaye@thomastelford.com
>
>
>
> www.thomastelford.com
>
>
>
> Civil engineers at the heart of society, delivering sustainable development
> through knowledge, skills and professional expertise.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com]
> Sent: 30 October 2008 01:13
> To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
>
> I didn't really consider "a couple of thousands" as a big index.
> Also by ( difference , size ) I meant not difference in index size ( 2.1
> and 2.3.1 ) , but what would be indexing speed difference ( 2.1 and 2.3.1
> ) as index grows, kind of function diff = F( index_size).
>
> 1000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3
> 100000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3
>
> 1000000 short records from database time_lucene2.1 time_lucene2.3
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Pavlo Zahozhenko <
> pavlozahozhenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've got an amazing 10x performance improvement for our small development
> > index (a couple of megabytes). However, it fails to index a couple of
> > thousands documents on production, so I had to revert to old good 2.0
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Floyd Wu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my
> > production
> > > use.
> > >
> > > Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts.
> > >
> > > Floyd
> > >
> > > 2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > > Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing
> > > with
> > > > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed
> statistics
> > (
> > > > index size , difference ).
> > > >
> > > > TIA
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
> service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more
> information on a proactive anti-virus service working
> around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> This communication, and the information it contains: (a) is intended for
> the person(s) or organisation(s) named above and for no other persons or
> organisations and (b) may be confidential and protected by law. Unauthorised
> use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful.
>
> Thomas Telford Ltd
> Company Registration No: 2556636
> Registered Office: 1-7 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA.
>
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
> service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more
> information on a proactive anti-virus service working
> around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
RE: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Derrick Okundaye <De...@thomastelford.com>.
The speed of the index does not matter as much as the speed of the search and memory footprint. What are the figures been returned?
I ask because l am (still) using 2.0 for both indexing and searching because of the smaller memory footprint.
Regards,
Derrick
Derrick Okundaye
.Net Developer
Thomas Telford Limited
1 Heron Quay
London E14 4JD
Tel: +44 (0)20 7665 2456
Fax: +44 (0)20 7537 2529
E-mail: derrick.okundaye@thomastelford.com
www.thomastelford.com
Civil engineers at the heart of society, delivering sustainable development through knowledge, skills and professional expertise.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mitiaguin [mailto:mitiaguin@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 October 2008 01:13
To: lucene-net-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
I didn't really consider "a couple of thousands" as a big index.
Also by ( difference , size ) I meant not difference in index size ( 2.1
and 2.3.1 ) , but what would be indexing speed difference ( 2.1 and 2.3.1
) as index grows, kind of function diff = F( index_size).
1000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3
100000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3
1000000 short records from database time_lucene2.1 time_lucene2.3
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Pavlo Zahozhenko <
pavlozahozhenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got an amazing 10x performance improvement for our small development
> index (a couple of megabytes). However, it fails to index a couple of
> thousands documents on production, so I had to revert to old good 2.0
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Floyd Wu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my
> production
> > use.
> >
> > Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts.
> >
> > Floyd
> >
> > 2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing
> > with
> > > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed statistics
> (
> > > index size , difference ).
> > >
> > > TIA
> > > Michael
> > >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
This communication, and the information it contains: (a) is intended for the person(s) or organisation(s) named above and for no other persons or organisations and (b) may be confidential and protected by law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be unlawful.
Thomas Telford Ltd
Company Registration No: 2556636
Registered Office: 1-7 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AA.
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service on behalf of the Institution of Civil Engineers. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>.
I didn't really consider "a couple of thousands" as a big index.
Also by ( difference , size ) I meant not difference in index size ( 2.1
and 2.3.1 ) , but what would be indexing speed difference ( 2.1 and 2.3.1
) as index grows, kind of function diff = F( index_size).
1000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3
100000 docs time_lucene2.1 time_lucene 2.3
1000000 short records from database time_lucene2.1 time_lucene2.3
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Pavlo Zahozhenko <
pavlozahozhenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got an amazing 10x performance improvement for our small development
> index (a couple of megabytes). However, it fails to index a couple of
> thousands documents on production, so I had to revert to old good 2.0
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Floyd Wu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my
> production
> > use.
> >
> > Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts.
> >
> > Floyd
> >
> > 2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>
> >
> > > Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing
> > with
> > > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed statistics
> (
> > > index size , difference ).
> > >
> > > TIA
> > > Michael
> > >
> >
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Jokin Cuadrado <jo...@gmail.com>.
All the patchs are for bug fixes, and as a unique patch is very easy to
install. I sugest you to try, I think it's better to use only one version
than the mixing that you are using ;)
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Pavlo Zahozhenko <pavlozahozhenko@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Haven't tried the unified patch yet. Tried different solutions before, all
> were buggy in different ways. My current setup is a bit weird, to say it
> mildly: I'm using 2.0 for indexing and 2.3.1 for incremental indexing.
> Although this solution might seem crazy, it is surprisingly stable. So now
> I'm a bit afraid of trying new patches until 2.3.1 becomes stable [?]
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Pavlo Zahozhenko <pa...@gmail.com>.
Haven't tried the unified patch yet. Tried different solutions before, all
were buggy in different ways. My current setup is a bit weird, to say it
mildly: I'm using 2.0 for indexing and 2.3.1 for incremental indexing.
Although this solution might seem crazy, it is surprisingly stable. So now
I'm a bit afraid of trying new patches until 2.3.1 becomes stable [?]
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Jokin Cuadrado <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you applied al the pathces that are already disponible?
>
> You can apply the unified patch that doug sale post to the list 2 weeks
> ago.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Pavlo Zahozhenko
> <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've got an amazing 10x performance improvement for our small development
> > index (a couple of megabytes). However, it fails to index a couple of
> > thousands documents on production, so I had to revert to old good 2.0
> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Floyd Wu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my
> production
> >> use.
> >>
> >> Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts.
> >>
> >> Floyd
> >>
> >> 2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> > Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing
> >> with
> >> > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed statistics
> (
> >> > index size , difference ).
> >> >
> >> > TIA
> >> > Michael
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Jokin Cuadrado <jo...@gmail.com>.
Have you applied al the pathces that are already disponible?
You can apply the unified patch that doug sale post to the list 2 weeks ago.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Pavlo Zahozhenko
<pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got an amazing 10x performance improvement for our small development
> index (a couple of megabytes). However, it fails to index a couple of
> thousands documents on production, so I had to revert to old good 2.0
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Floyd Wu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my production
>> use.
>>
>> Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts.
>>
>> Floyd
>>
>> 2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing
>> with
>> > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed statistics (
>> > index size , difference ).
>> >
>> > TIA
>> > Michael
>> >
>>
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Pavlo Zahozhenko <pa...@gmail.com>.
I've got an amazing 10x performance improvement for our small development
index (a couple of megabytes). However, it fails to index a couple of
thousands documents on production, so I had to revert to old good 2.0
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Floyd Wu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my production
> use.
>
> Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts.
>
> Floyd
>
> 2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>
>
> > Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing
> with
> > Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed statistics (
> > index size , difference ).
> >
> > TIA
> > Michael
> >
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Jokin Cuadrado <jo...@gmail.com>.
The index size its almost the same, but the indexing speed performance
it's great. In my case, about 50% just changing the dll.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Floyd Wu <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my production
> use.
>
> Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts.
>
> Floyd
>
> 2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>
>
>> Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing with
>> Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed statistics (
>> index size , difference ).
>>
>> TIA
>> Michael
>>
>
Re: Lucene.Net 2.3.1 indexing speed
Posted by Floyd Wu <fl...@gmail.com>.
I did notice that 2.3.1 get great performance improvement in my production
use.
Thanks for Lucene.Net Team's efforts.
Floyd
2008/10/29 Michael Mitiaguin <mi...@gmail.com>
> Just wondering did people notice a great time reduction when indexing with
> Lucene.Net 2.3.1 Perhaps, someone may provide more detailed statistics (
> index size , difference ).
>
> TIA
> Michael
>