On 3/19/2014 4:55 AM, Colin R wrote:
My question is an architecture one.
These photos are currently indexed and searched in three ways.
1: The 14M pictures from above are split into a few hundred indexes that
feed a single website. This means index sizes of between 100 and 500,000
entries each.
fig is lots of indexes with merges into the larger ones.
>
> They are still running very fast but indexing is causing us issues.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Newbie-Question-Master-Index-or-100s-Small-Index-tp4125407p4125447.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
of indexes with merges into the larger ones.
They are still running very fast but indexing is causing us issues.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Newbie-Question-Master-Index-or-100s-Small-Index-tp4125407p4125447.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 13:28 +0100, Colin R wrote:
> My question is really regarding index architecture. One big or many small
> (with merged big ones)
One difference is that having a single index/collection gives you better
ranked searches within each collection. If you only use date/filename
sort
-Master-Index-or-100s-Small-Index-tp4125407p4125429.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 11:55 +0100, Colin R wrote:
> We run a central database of 14M (and growing) photos with dates, captions,
> keywords, etc.
>
> We currently upgrading from old Lucene Servers to latest Solr running with a
> couple of dedicated servers (6 core, 36GB, 500SSD). Planning on usin
changes a day PLUS very busy search servers.
Thanks
Col
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Newbie-Question-Master-Index-or-100s-Small-Index-tp4125407.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
