Jack Krupansky wrote:
> Again to be clear, if you really do need the best/minimal overall query
> latency, your best bet is to have sufficient system memory to fully cache
> the entire index. If you actually don't need minimal latency, then of
> course you can feel free to trade off RAM for lower
Personally, I'll continue to recommend that the ideal goal is to fully
cache the entire Lucene index in system memory, as well as doing a proof of
concept implementation to validate actual performance for your actual data.
You can do a POC with a small fraction of your full data, like 15% or even
1
al Message-
> From: Emir Arnautovic [mailto:emir.arnauto...@sematext.com]
> Sent: venerdì 15 gennaio 2016 11:06
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Speculation on Memory needed to efficently run a Solr Instance.
>
> Hi,
> OS does not care much about search v.s. re
n optimize the index. (during night there are no
searches).
--
Gian Maria Ricci
Cell: +39 320 0136949
-Original Message-
From: Emir Arnautovic [mailto:emir.arnauto...@sematext.com]
Sent: venerdì 15 gennaio 2016 11:06
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Speculation on Memory
Hi,
OS does not care much about search v.s. retrieve so amount of RAM needed
for file caches would depend on your index usage patterns. If you are
not retrieving stored fields much and most/all results are only
id+score, than it can be assumed that you can go with less RAM than
actual index si
