On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 11:19 +0100, Dorian Hoxha wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Toke Eskildsen > <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> wrote: > > We try hard to stay below 32GB, but for some setups the penalty of > > crossing the boundary is worth it. If, for example, having > > everything in 1 shard means a heap requirement of 50GB, it can be a > > better solution than a multi-shard setup with 2*25GB heap. > > > The heap is for the instance, not for each shard. Yeah, having less > shards is ~more efficient since terms-dictionary,cache etc have lower > duplication.
True, but that was not my point. What I tried to communicate is that there can be a huge difference between having 1 shard in the collection and having more than 1 shard. Not for document searches, but for aggregations such as grouping and especially String faceting. - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
