Re: Tlog vs. buffer + softcommit.

2012-08-10 Thread Bing Hua
se to keep an amount of Tlogs for peers to sync up. Thanks, Bing -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Tlog-vs-buffer-softcommit-tp4000330p4000509.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Tlog vs. buffer + softcommit.

2012-08-10 Thread Yonik Seeley
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Bing Hua wrote: > Thanks for the information. It definitely helps a lot. There're > numDeletesToKeep = 1000; numRecordsToKeep = 100; in UpdateLog so this should > probably be what you're referring to. > > However when I was doing indexing the total size of TLogs k

Re: Tlog vs. buffer + softcommit.

2012-08-10 Thread Bing Hua
the case where there's a cap for number of documents? Also for peersync, can I find some intro online? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Tlog-vs-buffer-softcommit-tp4000330p4000503.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Tlog vs. buffer + softcommit.

2012-08-09 Thread Yonik Seeley
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Bing Hua wrote: > I'm a bit confused with the purpose of Transaction Logs (Update Logs) in > Solr. > > My understanding is, update request comes in, first the new item is put in > RAM buffer as well as T-Log. After a soft commit happens, the new item > becomes searc

Tlog vs. buffer + softcommit.

2012-08-09 Thread Bing Hua
ld be appreciated. Thanks, Bing -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Tlog-vs-buffer-softcommit-tp4000330.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.