I'll try changing my other caches to LRUCache and observe performance. Interestingly, the FastLRUCache has given me a ~10% increase in performance, much lower than I've read on the SOLR-667 thread.
Would compressing some of my stored fields significantly improve performance? Most of my stored fields contain single words or numbers, but I do have one relatively large stored field that contains up to a couple paragraphs of text. I agree that my 3% query cache hit rate is quite low (probably unrealistically low). I'm treating these results as the worst-case. Feak, Todd wrote: > > Yonik said something about the FastLRUCache giving the most gain for > high hit-rates and the LRUCache being faster for low hit-rates. It's in > his Nov 1 comment on SOLR-667. I'm not sure if anything changed since > then, as it's an active issue, but you may want to try the LRUCache for > your query cache. > > It sounds like you are memory bound already, but you may want to > investigate the tradeoffs of your filter cache vs. document cache. High > document hit-rate was a big performance boost for us, as document > garbage collection is a lot of overhead. I believe that would show up as > CPU usage though, so it may not be your bottleneck. > > This also brings up an interesting question. 3% hit rate on your query > cache seems low to me. Are you sure your load test is mimicking > realistic query patterns from your user base? I realize this probably > isn't part of your bottleneck, just curious. > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Throughput-Optimization-tp20335132p20348749.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
