Re: Result: numFound inaccuracies

[Tracey Jaquith]

hey, this bit me last week, too ;-) it had me completely miserable, thinking "oh no, solr doesn't work for us!" when i was installing it, and took me a few hours to figure it out! while "on the phone" now, I'm happy to announce from Internet Archive some results. We indexed 523K documents in about 2 hours, yielding an index of a mere 0.9 GB. I slipped in into friday night's live servers for about 90 minutes to watch performance. It was a *CHAMP*!! It easily laughed at load queries of 3 req/sec, using miniscule amounts of disk I/O, no swapping/paging, and only minor CPU bursts (on one dual-core 4GB intel linux box). I'll report more, but that's enough of a "happy holidays" for us at IA! (Compare this to our current search engine embarrassment/disaster --    5 boxes (replication -- 4 readers all with 4GB dual-core intel + 1 writer 8GB quad intel)    handles about 3 query req/sec and often has CPU at 100% and mem at 50%.    index for slightly *smaller* docset is a "WTF?" 23GB) --tracey Andrew Nagy wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, December 8, 2006 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Result: numFound inaccuracies To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org start is 0 based :-) Man do I feel dumb! Andrew --        --Tracey Jaquith - http://www.archive.org/~tracey --