Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I have 20 machines in the configuration,
each shard/replica is on it's own machine.
On 14 February 2014 19:44, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 2/14/2014 5:28 AM, Annette Newton wrote:
> > Solr Version: 4.3.1
> > Number Shards: 10
> >
e nio one and now the above message is
what I have received. I have also upped the header request and response
sizes.
Any ideas - other than not using replicas as proposed by a colleague?
Thanks very much in advance.
--
Annette Newton
Database Administrator
ServiceTick Ltd
T:+44(0)1603 6
ge query time from 280ms to
> > 60ms.
> >
> > How would you suggest to name such parameter?
> > Now we call it "facet.enum.exists" but I'm not sure it's a good name.
> > When we will clarify this little thing, I'll create a jira-issue and
> >
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
--
Annette Newton
Database Administrator
ServiceTick Ltd
T:+44(0)1603 618326
Seebohm House, 2-4 Queen Street, Norwich, England NR2 4SQ
www.servicetick.com
*www.sessioncam.com <http://www.sessioncam.com>*
--
*This message is confidential and is inten
;
> FWIW,
> Erick
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:03 AM, Annette Newton
> wrote:
> > Thanks Shawn.
> >
> > I have played around with Soft Commits before and didn't seem to have any
> > improvement, but with the current load testing I am doing I will give
One question Shawn - did you ever get any costings around Zing? Did you
trial it?
Thanks.
On 3 May 2013 10:03, Annette Newton wrote:
> Thanks Shawn.
>
> I have played around with Soft Commits before and didn't seem to have any
> improvement, but with the current load testing
cope with
the writes, so I will play around with adding more shards and see how I go.
I appreciate you having a look over our setup and the advice.
Thanks again.
Netty.
On 2 May 2013 23:17, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 4:24 AM, Annette Newton wrote:
> > Hi Shawn,
> >
&g
Facet queries will be the same as the above, we always restrict by the date
and the customer reference.
Hope this is enough information to be going on with. Again thanks for your
help.
Netty.
On 1 May 2013 17:31, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 8:42 AM, Annette Newton wrote:
>
&
n 5/1/2013 3:39 AM, Annette Newton wrote:
> > We have a 4 shard - 2 replica solr cloud setup, each with about 26GB of
> > index. A total of 24,000,000. We issued a rather large delete yesterday
> > morning to reduce that size by about half, this resulted in the loss of
> all
>
ocess for deleting documents? Is this expected
behaviour?
Thanks very much.
--
Annette Newton
Database Administrator
ServiceTick Ltd
T:+44(0)1603 618326
Seebohm House, 2-4 Queen Street, Norwich, England NR2 4SQ
www.servicetick.com
*www.sessioncam.com*
--
*This message is confidentia
n be replicated
> in that
> > > > > >> shard
> > > > > >> > to any number of replicas.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Can you clarify your question as it sounds like you're saying
> that the
> &g
Are multi-valued fields ordered and if so is it possible to search on the
final value only?
--
Annette Newton
Database Administrator
ServiceTick Ltd
T:+44(0)1603 618326
Seebohm House, 2-4 Queen Street, Norwich, England NR2 4SQ
www.servicetick.com
*www.sessioncam.com*
--
*This
3293p4046915.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Annette Newton
Database Administrator
ServiceTick Ltd
T:+44(0)1603 618326
Seebohm House, 2-4 Queen Street, Norwich, England NR2 4SQ
www.servicetick.com
*www.sessioncam.com*
--
*This message i
dré
On 12/05/2012 06:41 PM, Annette Newton wrote:
> Sorry to bombard you - final update of the day...
>
> One thing that I have noticed is that we have a lot of connections
> between the solr boxes with the connection set to CLOSE_WAIT and they
> hang around for ages.
>
> ---
Sorry to bombard you - final update of the day...
One thing that I have noticed is that we have a lot of connections between
the solr boxes with the connection set to CLOSE_WAIT and they hang around
for ages.
-Original Message-
From: Annette Newton [mailto:annette.new...@servicetick.com
eriod of time.
Also just to let you know I changed the schema a couple of times and
reloaded the cores on all instances previous to the problem. Don't know if
this could have contributed to the problem.
Thanks.
-Original Message-----
From: Annette Newton [mailto:annette.new...@servi
lass/0x73ae8db40>
3456
96768
class [[C <http://localhost:7000/class/0x73b60cf18>
This sample of the heap dump I took when we encountered the problem previously..
-Original Message-
From: Jack Krupansky [mailto:j...@basetechnology.com]
Sent: 28 Novemb
17 matches
Mail list logo
