On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Dennis Gearon wrote:
> Nearly 100ms? If any netizen ever complained about that, I'd 'round-file' the
> complaint. Internal to a single process's execution, well, mabye it's an
> issue.
> Not too hard to handle.
Well there are many caveats, but 100 msec is where (
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Bing Li wrote:
> I have a question. If Lucene is good at updating, it must more loads on the
> Solr cluster. So in my system, I will leave the large amount of crawled data
> unchanged for ever. Meanwhile, I use a traditional database to keep mutable
> data.
>
> For
o: Michael McCandless
Cc: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: When Index is Updated Frequently
Dear Michael,
Thanks so much for your answer!
I have a question. If Lucene is good at updating, it must more loads on the
Solr cluster. So in my system, I will leave the large amount of crawled data
unc
ache.org; bing...@asu.edu
Cc: Bing Li
Sent: Fri, March 4, 2011 10:45:05 AM
Subject: Re: When Index is Updated Frequently
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Bing Li wrote:
> According to my experiences, when the Lucene index updated frequently, its
> performance must become low. Is it correct?
Dear Michael,
Thanks so much for your answer!
I have a question. If Lucene is good at updating, it must more loads on the
Solr cluster. So in my system, I will leave the large amount of crawled data
unchanged for ever. Meanwhile, I use a traditional database to keep mutable
data.
Fortunately, in
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Bing Li wrote:
> According to my experiences, when the Lucene index updated frequently, its
> performance must become low. Is it correct?
In fact Lucene can gracefully handle a high rate of updates with low
latency turnaround on the readers, using the near-real-t
