Re: Solr 3.5 Optimization takes index file size almost double

2013-06-14 Thread Pravin Bhutada
Hi Viresh,

How much free disc space do you have?  if you have dont have enough space
on disc, optimization process stops and rollsback to some intermediate
state.


Pravin




On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Viresh Modi  wrote:

> Hi Rafal
>
> Here i attached solr index file snapshot as well ..
> So can you look into this and any another information required regarding
> it then let me know.
>
>
> Thanks&  Regards,
> Viresh modi
> Mobile: 91 (0) 9714567430
>
>
> On 13 June 2013 17:41, Rafał Kuć  wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Do you have some backup after commit in your configuration? It would
>> also be good to see how your index directory looks like, can you list
>> that ?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>  Rafał Kuć
>>  Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - ElasticSearch
>>
>> > Thanks Rafal for reply...
>>
>> > I agree with you. But Actually After optimization , it does not reduce
>> size
>> > and it remains double. so is there any thing we missed or need to do for
>> > achieving index size reduction ?
>>
>> > Is there any special setting we need to configure for replication?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 13 June 2013 16:53, Rafał Kuć  wrote:
>>
>> >> Hello!
>> >>
>> >> Optimize command needs to rewrite the segments, so while it is
>> >> still working you may see the index size to be doubled. However after
>> >> it is finished the index size will be usually lowered comparing to the
>> >> index size before optimize.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Regards,
>> >>  Rafał Kuć
>> >>  Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - ElasticSearch
>> >>
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > I have solr server 1.4.1 with index file size 428GB.Now When I
>> upgrade
>> >> solr
>> >> > Server 1.4.1 to Solr 3.5.0 by replication method. Size remains same.
>> >> > But when optimize index for Solr 3.5.0 instance its size reaches
>> 791GB.so
>> >> > what is solutions for size remains same or lesser.
>> >> > I optimize Solr 3.5 with Query:
>> >> > /update?optimize=true&commit=true
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks & regards
>> >> > Viresh Modi
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
> --
> This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and
> may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no
> action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please
> reply to this email and highlight the error.
>


Re: Solr 3.5 Optimization takes index file size almost double

2013-06-14 Thread Pravin Bhutada
One thing that you can try is optimize incrementally. Instead of optimizing
to 1 segment, optimize to 100, then 50 , 25, 10 ,5 ,2 ,1
After each step, the index size should go down. This way you dont have to
wait 7 hours to get some results.


Pravin


On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Viresh Modi <
viresh.m...@highqsolutions.com> wrote:

> Hi pravin
>
> I have nearly 2 TB Disk space for optimization.And  after optimization get
> response of Qtime nearly 7hours (Obvious which  in milisecond).So i think
> not issue of disk space.
>
>
> Thanks&  Regards,
> Viresh modi
> Mobile: 91 (0) 9714567430
>
>
> On 14 June 2013 20:10, Pravin Bhutada  wrote:
>
> > Hi Viresh,
> >
> > How much free disc space do you have?  if you have dont have enough space
> > on disc, optimization process stops and rollsback to some intermediate
> > state.
> >
> >
> > Pravin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Viresh Modi <
> > viresh.m...@highqsolutions.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Rafal
> > >
> > > Here i attached solr index file snapshot as well ..
> > > So can you look into this and any another information required
> regarding
> > > it then let me know.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks&  Regards,
> > > Viresh modi
> > > Mobile: 91 (0) 9714567430
> > >
> > >
> > > On 13 June 2013 17:41, Rafał Kuć  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello!
> > >>
> > >> Do you have some backup after commit in your configuration? It would
> > >> also be good to see how your index directory looks like, can you list
> > >> that ?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Regards,
> > >>  Rafał Kuć
> > >>  Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - ElasticSearch
> > >>
> > >> > Thanks Rafal for reply...
> > >>
> > >> > I agree with you. But Actually After optimization , it does not
> reduce
> > >> size
> > >> > and it remains double. so is there any thing we missed or need to do
> > for
> > >> > achieving index size reduction ?
> > >>
> > >> > Is there any special setting we need to configure for replication?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > On 13 June 2013 16:53, Rafał Kuć  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> Hello!
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Optimize command needs to rewrite the segments, so while it is
> > >> >> still working you may see the index size to be doubled. However
> after
> > >> >> it is finished the index size will be usually lowered comparing to
> > the
> > >> >> index size before optimize.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Regards,
> > >> >>  Rafał Kuć
> > >> >>  Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - ElasticSearch
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Hi,
> > >> >> > I have solr server 1.4.1 with index file size 428GB.Now When I
> > >> upgrade
> > >> >> solr
> > >> >> > Server 1.4.1 to Solr 3.5.0 by replication method. Size remains
> > same.
> > >> >> > But when optimize index for Solr 3.5.0 instance its size reaches
> > >> 791GB.so
> > >> >> > what is solutions for size remains same or lesser.
> > >> >> > I optimize Solr 3.5 with Query:
> > >> >> > /update?optimize=true&commit=true
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Thanks & regards
> > >> >> > Viresh Modi
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only
> and
> > > may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no
> > > action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please
> > > reply to this email and highlight the error.
> > >
> >
>
> --
>
> --
> This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and
> may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no
> action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please
> reply to this email and highlight the error.
>