On 2/13/07, Ian Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/13/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, sorting by fields does take up memory (the fieldcache).
> 256M is pretty small for a 5M doc index.
> If you have any more memory slots, spring for some more memory (a
> little over $100 for
On 2/13/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, sorting by fields does take up memory (the fieldcache).
256M is pretty small for a 5M doc index.
If you have any more memory slots, spring for some more memory (a
little over $100 for 1GB).
Yeah, I'll see if I can give solr a bit more.
Yes, sorting by fields does take up memory (the fieldcache).
256M is pretty small for a 5M doc index.
If you have any more memory slots, spring for some more memory (a
little over $100 for 1GB).
Lucene also likes to have free memory left over available for OS cache
- otherwise searches start to
All,
I'm having some performance issues with solr. I will give some
background on our setup and implementation of solr. I'm completely
open to reworking everything if the way we are currently doing things
are not optimal. I'll try to be as verbose as I can in explaining all
of this, but feel free
