On 3/5/2014 2:58 PM, Toby Lazar wrote:
OK, I was using HttpSolrServer since I haven't yet migrated to
CloudSolrServer. I added the line:
solrServer.setRequestWriter(new BinaryRequestWriter())
after creating the server object and now see the difference through
wireshark. Is it fair to assu
OK, I was using HttpSolrServer since I haven't yet migrated to
CloudSolrServer. I added the line:
solrServer.setRequestWriter(new BinaryRequestWriter())
after creating the server object and now see the difference through
wireshark. Is it fair to assume that this usage is multi-thread safe?
On 3/5/2014 2:31 PM, Toby Lazar wrote:
I believe SolrJ uses XML under the covers. If so, I don't think you would
improve performance by switching to SolrJ, since the client would convert
it to XML before sending it on the wire.
Until recently, SolrJ always used XML by default for requests and
time required for my indexing good enough? I dont know about
> > the
> > ideal timings.
> > I think that my indexing is taking more time.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> >
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/to-reduce-indexing-time-tp4121391p4121483.html
> >
> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
>
>
e collection. Thanks a lot, all of you.
>
> But, is the time required for my indexing good enough? I dont know about
> the
> ideal timings.
> I think that my indexing is taking more time.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.
dont know about
> the
> ideal timings.
> I think that my indexing is taking more time.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/to-reduce-indexing-time-tp4121391p4121483.html
>
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
about JVM Garbage collection. Thanks a lot, all of you.
But, is the time required for my indexing good enough? I dont know about the
ideal timings.
I think that my indexing is taking more time.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/to-reduce-indexing-time
I will surely read about JVM Garbage collection. Thanks a lot, all of you.
But, is the time required for my indexing good enough? I dont know about the
ideal timings.
I think that my indexing is taking more time.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/to-reduce
ry usage to change, if the data to be indexed is same?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/to-reduce-indexing-time-tp4121391p4121441.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
memory usage to change, if the data to be indexed is same?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/to-reduce-indexing-time-tp4121391p4121441.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 3/5/2014 7:47 AM, sweety wrote:
> Before indexing , this was the memory layout,
>
> System Memory : 63.2% ,2.21 gb
> JVM Memory : 8.3% , 81.60mb of 981.38mb
>
> I have indexed 700 documents of total size 12MB.
> Following are the results i get :
> Qtime: 8122, System time : 00:00:12.7318648
>
, if softcommit is done, then faceting cannot be done on the
data??
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/to-reduce-indexing-time-tp4121391.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
indexing.
Is it true that, if softcommit is done, then faceting cannot be done on the
data??
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/to-reduce-indexing-time-tp4121391.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
13 matches
Mail list logo