Is there anyway to know how much memory is being used in caches?

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Jonathan Ariel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In order to do that I have to change to a 64 bits OS so I can have more
> than 4 GB of RAM.Is there any way to see how long does it takes to Solr to
> warmup the searcher?
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > A commit every two minutes means that the Solr caches are flushed
> > before they even start to stabilize. Two things to try:
> >
> > * commit less often, 5 minutes or 10 minutes
> > * have enough RAM that your entire index can fit in OS file buffers
> >
> > wunder
> >
> > On 4/16/08 6:27 AM, "Jonathan Ariel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > So I counted the number if distinct values that I have for each field
> > that I
> > > want a facet on. In total it's around 100,000. I tried with a
> > filterCache
> > > of 120,000 but it seems like too much because the server went down. I
> > will
> > > try with less, around 75,000 and let you know.
> > >
> > > How do you to partition the data to a static set and a dynamic set,
> > and then
> > > combining them at query time? Do you have a link to read about that?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 15-Apr-08, at 5:38 AM, Jonathan Ariel wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> My index is 4GB on disk. My servers has 8 GB of RAM each (the OS is
> > 32
> > >>> bits).
> > >>> It is optimized twice a day, it takes around 15 minutes to optimize.
> > >>> The index is updated (commits) every two minutes. There are between
> > 10
> > >>> and
> > >>> 100 inserts/updates every 2 minutes.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Caching could help--you should definitely start there.
> > >>
> > >> The commit every 2 minutes could end up being an unsurmountable
> > problem.
> > >>  You may have to partition your data into a large, mostly static set
> > and a
> > >> small dynamic set, combining the results at query time.
> > >>
> > >> -Mike
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to