Thanks Erick,  for pointing out.  You are right.  I was optimizing every 10
mins.  And I have change this to every day in night.
On 14-Apr-2016 5:20 pm, "Erick Erickson" <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote:

> don't issue an optimize command... either you have a solrj client that
> issues a client.optimize() command or you pressed the "optimize now"
> in the admin UI. Solr doesn't do this by itself.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Novin Novin <toe.al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How can I stop happening "DirectUpdateHandler2 Starting optimize...
> Reading
> > and rewriting the entire index! Use with care"
> >
> > Thanks
> > novin
> >
> > On 14 April 2016 at 14:36, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/14/2016 7:23 AM, Novin Novin wrote:
> >> > Thanks for reply Shawn.
> >> >
> >> > Below is snippet of jetty.xml and jetty-https.xml
> >> >
> >> > jetty.xml:38:    <Set name="idleTimeout" type="int"><Property
> >> > name="solr.jetty.threads.idle.timeout" default="5000"/></Set>
> >> > /// I presume this one I should increase, But I believe 5 second is
> >> enough
> >> > time for 250 docs to add to solr.
> >>
> >> 5 seconds might not be enough time.  The *add* probably completes in
> >> time, but the entire request might take longer, especially if you use
> >> commit=true with the request.  I would definitely NOT set this timeout
> >> so low -- requests that take longer than 5 seconds are very likely going
> >> to happen.
> >>
> >> > I'm also seeing "DirectUpdateHandler2 Starting optimize... Reading and
> >> > rewriting the entire index! Use with care". Would this be causing
> delay
> >> > response from solr?
> >>
> >> Exactly how long an optimize takes is dependent on the size of your
> >> index.  Rewriting an index that's a few hundred megabytes may take 30
> >> seconds to a minute.  Rewriting an index that's several gigabytes will
> >> take a few minutes.  Performance is typically lower during an optimize,
> >> because the CPU and disks are very busy.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Shawn
> >>
> >>
>

Reply via email to