Hi Shawn, Thanks for you reply.
However, we did not delete our index when the screenshot was taken. All the indexes are still in Solr. My guess is after we change our searchFields_tcs schema which is: *From*: <dynamicField name="*_tcs" type="text_chinese" indexed="true" stored="true" multiValued="true" termVectors="true" termPositions="true" termOffsets="true"/> *To:* <dynamicField name="*_tcs" type="text_chinese" indexed="true" stored="true" multiValued="true" storeOffsetsWithPositions="true" termVectors="true" termPositions="false" termOffsets="false"/> The above change was done in order to use the Solr recommended unified highlighter (Posting with light term vectors) with Solr's documentation claimed it is the fastest. My best guess is Solr 7.5.0 has some bugs that slowed down the whole index and queries with the new approach (above new dynamicField schema), which it affects the index OS filecaching or any other issues. So I kindly suggest you look deeper and see whether such bugs are exists? Note: If you need my schema and configuration files, please refer to my earlier correspondences in the same thread. Regards, Edwin On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 18:38, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 1/26/2019 4:48 PM, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo wrote: > > Thanks for your reply. Below are the replies to your email: > > > > 1) We have tried to set the heap size to be 8g previously when we faced > the > > same issue, and changing to 7g does not help too. > > > > 2) We are using standard disk at the moment. > > > > 3) In the link is the screenshot of the process list that is sort by > Commit. > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TzxaAqbDJwYO0aHo9GW34p2kncnylRkG/view?usp=sharing > > My original thought is still the best idea I have. I think that the > other software on the system is heavily using the disk cache and not > leaving enough of it for Solr's data. > > From what I can tell, the other software on the system is not using > MMAP for disk access, so the large amount of disk cache usage is not > reflected in the "Commit" number for those programs. > > In the last screenshot, the Solr instances appear to be handling very > little index data -- the Commit number is actually *smaller* than the > Working Set number, which will not be the case when there is a lot of > index data. I'm betting that at the point when that screenshot was > taken, all the index data had been deleted, possibly in preparation for > rebuilding the indexes. > > Thanks, > Shawn >
