Hi,

It's simply expensive.  You are rewriting your whole index.

Why are you running optimize?  Are you seeing performance problems you are
trying to fix with optimize?

Otis
--
Monitoring - Log Management - Alerting - Anomaly Detection
Solr & Elasticsearch Consulting Support Training - http://sematext.com/


On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Caruana, Matthew <mcaru...@icij.org> wrote:

> Thank you. The question remains however, if this is such a hefty operation
> then why is it walking to the destination instead of running, so to speak?
>
> Is the process throttled in some way?
>
> > On 2 Mar 2017, at 16:20, David Hastings <hastings.recurs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, and since it takes three times the space is part of the reason it
> > takes so long, so that 190gb index ends up writing another 380 gb until
> it
> > compresses down and deletes the two left over files.  its a pretty hefty
> > operation
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch <
> arafa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Optimize operation is no longer recommended for Solr, as the
> >> background merges got a lot smarter.
> >>
> >> It is an extremely expensive operation that can require up to 3-times
> >> amount of disk during the processing.
> >>
> >> This is not to say yours is a valid question, which I am leaving to
> >> others to respond.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>   Alex.
> >> ----
> >> http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new and
> experienced
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2 March 2017 at 10:04, Caruana, Matthew <mcaru...@icij.org> wrote:
> >>> I’m currently performing an optimise operation on a ~190GB index with
> >> about 4 million documents. The process has been running for hours.
> >>>
> >>> This is surprising, because the machine is an EC2 r4.xlarge with four
> >> cores and 30GB of RAM, 24GB of which is allocated to the JVM.
> >>>
> >>> The load average has been steady at about 1.3. Memory usage is 25% or
> >> less the whole time. iostat reports ~6% util.
> >>>
> >>> What gives?
> >>>
> >>> Running Solr 6.4.1.
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to