Admittedly I'm new to this, but the project we're working on feeds results
from Solr to an ASP.net application. Currently we are using XML, but our
payloads can be rather large, some up to 17MB. We are looking for a way to
minimize that payload and increase performance and I'm curious if there's
As I've mentioned before, I'm very new to Solr. I'm not a Java guy or an
Apache guy. I'm a .Net guy.
We have a rather large schema - some 100 + fields plus a large number of
dynamic fields.
We've been trying to improve performance and finally got around to
implementing fastvectorhighlighting wh
As an update to this... I tried running a query again the
4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56 version and the newer 4.0.0.2012.02.16 (both on
the same box). So the query params were the same, returned results were the
same, but the 4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56 returned the results in about 1.6
seconds and the
Erick -
Agreed, it is puzzling.
What I've found is that it doesn't matter if I pass in wildcards for the
field list or not...but that the overall response time from the newer builds
of Solr that we've tested (e.g. 4.0.0.2012.02.16) is slower than the older
(4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56) build.
If
also
> connect jConsole remotely...
>
> This is just an experiment, but any time I see "and it slows down
> after ### minutes",
> GC is the first thing I think of.
>
>
> Best
> Erick
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:16 AM, naptowndev <[hidden
> em
We are currently running tests against some of the more recent nightly builds
of Solr 4, but have noticed some significant performance decreases recently.
Some of the reasons we are using Solr 4 is because we needed geofiltering
and highlighting which were not originally available in 3 from my
und
number of
> simultaneous requests), see:
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCaching#documentCache
>
> Is there any chance that is false
> in solrconfig.xml? That could account for it.
>
> But I'm afraid it's a matter of trying to remove stuff from your
> process until
Yonik -
Thanks, we'll give that a try (re: lazyfieldlaoding).
and no, the * is not in our config...that must have come over from pasting
it in from the file. Odd.
Another question I have is regarding solr.LRUCache vs. solr.FastLRUCache.
Would there be reason to implement (or not implement) fas
I'm not sure what would constitute a low vs. high hit rate (and eviction
rate), so we've kept the setting at LRUCache instead of FastCache for now.
But I will say we did turn the LazyFieldLoading option off and wow - a huge
increase in performance on the newer nightly build we are using (the one
f
In your solrconfig.xml file, you changed this line:
> true
> to this:
> false
>
> and your response time DECREASED? If you can confirm that
> I'm reading it right, I'll open up a JIRA.
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM, naptowndev <[
gt;> weird if I'm reading it correctly.
>>
>> In your solrconfig.xml file, you changed this line:
>> true
>> to this:
>> false
>>
>> and your response time DECREASED? If you can confirm that
>> I'm reading it right, I'll open up a JIRA.
&
I will run some queries today, both with lazyfield loading on and off (for
the 2010 build we're using and the 2012 build we're using) and get you some
of the debug data.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Yonik Seeley-2-2 [via Lucene] <
ml-node+s472066n318...@n3.nabble.com> wrote:
> On Sun, F
I've run some test on both the versions of Solr we are testing... one is the
2010.12.10 build and the other is the 2012.02.16 build. The latter one is
where we were initially seeing poor response performance. I've attached 4
text files which have the results of a few runs against each of the buil
13 matches
Mail list logo
