g_true.txt
2012-02-16build_lazyfieldloading_true.txt
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3780995.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
>
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p318.html
> To unsubscribe from Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help, click
> here<http://lucene.472066.n3.na
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Would you hypothesize that lazy field loading could be that much
> slower if a large fraction of fields were selected?
If you actually use the lazy field later, it will cause an extra read
for each field.
If you don't have enough free RAM f
nywhere around 6-8 seconds before.
>>> >
>>> > Granted, I've only run about 20 tests (manually) at this point, so I'm
>>> going
>>> > to keep hitting at the server for a while with different queries to see
>>> if
>>> > anyt
; lazyfieldloading to false has improved performance.
>> >
>> > It'd be ideal to figure out why that's the case, but that's a little
>> beyond
>> > my skill set at the moment.
>> >
>> > I'll let you guys know how results look as
et you guys know how results look as I proceed throughout the day.
> > (I've yet to run these tests against the 2010 build we were comparing
> > against - so I need to do that too)
> >
> > Please also let me know if you have any further suggestions.
> >
> > T
ease also let me know if you have any further suggestions.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773310.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
to run these tests against the 2010 build we were comparing
against - so I need to do that too)
Please also let me know if you have any further suggestions.
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3
brings it back in about 8.4 seconds.
>> >> >
>> >> > Implementing the field list wildcard allows us to reduce the payload
>> in
>> >> the
>> >> > newer build (not an option in the older build). They payload is
>> reduced
&
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:24 AM, naptowndev wrote:
> Another question I have is regarding solr.LRUCache vs. solr.FastLRUCache.
> Would there be reason to implement (or not implement) fastLRU on the
> documentcache?
LRUCache can be faster if the hit rate is really low (i.e. the
eviction rate is h
ement) fastLRU on the
documentcache?
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773015.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:25 AM, naptowndev wrote:
> Our current config for that is as follows:
> initialSize="*15000*"autowarmCount
> ="*0*" />
>
> It's the same for both instances
I assume the asterisks are for emphasis and are not actually present
in your config?
> And lazyfieldloading is e
;> >
> >> > From a wildcard perspective, it's on the fl parameter... here's a
> >> 'snippet'
> >> > of part of our fl parameter for the query
> >> >
> >> > &fl=id, CategoryGroupTypeID, MedicalSpecial
; Category_*_Grade,
>> > Category_*_GradeDisplay, Category_*_GradeTier,
>> Category_*_ReportLocations,
>> > Category_*_ReportLocationCoordinates, Category_*_coordinate, score
>> >
>> > Please note that that fl param is greatly reduced
t; Category_*_ReportLocations,
> > Category_*_ReportLocationCoordinates, Category_*_coordinate, score
> >
> > Please note that that fl param is greatly reduced from our full query,
> we
> > have over 100 static files and a slew of dynamic fields - but that
> should
>
;m not sure about the maxBooleanClauses...not being all that familiar with
> Solr, does that apply to wildcards used in the fl list?
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3769995.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
have over 100 static files and a slew of dynamic fields - but that should
give you an idea of how we are using wildcards.
I'm not sure about the maxBooleanClauses...not being all that familiar with
Solr, does that apply to wildcards used in the fl list?
Thanks!
--
View this message in context
d cache).
>
> Anybody have any insight into why the newer versions are performing a bit
> slower?
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3767725.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
).
Anybody have any insight into why the newer versions are performing a bit
slower?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3767725.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
;d love to not only have the performance boost from fast vector
highlighting, but also the decreased payload size.
Thanks in advance!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3767015.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
20 matches
Mail list logo
