A suggester rebuild will mmap the entire index. So'll you need free memory for depending on your index size.
On 19 September 2017 at 13:47, shamik <sham...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree, should have made it clear in my initial post. The reason I thought > it's little trivial since the newly introduced collection has only few > hundred documents and is not being used in search yet. Neither it's being > indexed at a regular interval. The cache parameters are kept to a minimum > as > well. But there might be overheads of a simply creating a collection which > I'm not aware of. > > I did bring down the heap size to 8gb, changed to G1 and reduced the cache > params. The memory so far has been holding up but will wait for a while > before passing on a judgment. > > <filterCache class="solr.FastLRUCache" size="256" initialSize="256" > autowarmCount="0"/> > <queryResultCache class="solr.LRUCache" size="256" initialSize="256" > autowarmCount="0"/> > <documentCache class="solr.LRUCache" size="256" initialSize="256" > autowarmCount="0"/> > <cache name="perSegFilter" class="solr.search.LRUCache" size="10" > initialSize="0" autowarmCount="10" regenerator="solr.NoOpRegenerator" /> > <fieldValueCache class="solr.FastLRUCache" size="256" autowarmCount="256" > showItems="0" /> > > The change seemed to have increased the number of slow queries (1000 ms), > but I'm willing to address the OOM over performance at this point. One > thing > I realized is that I provided the wrong index size here. It's 49gb instead > of 25, which I mistakenly picked from one shard. I hope the heap size will > continue to sustain for the index size. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html >
