it depends on a few things. 1) no:of docs added 2) is the index optimized 3) autowarming
if the no:of docs added are few and the index is not optimized , the replication will be will be done in milliseconds (the changed files will be small). If there is no autoWarming , there should be no delay in seeing the new data On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Vauthrin, Laurent <laurent.vauth...@disney.com> wrote: > Thanks for the responses. > > If we used a poll interval of one second (for 1.4), wouldn't we still have to > wait for the replication to finish? In that case, couldn't it take minutes > (depending on index size) to get that data on the slave? Or would there be a > lot less data to pull down because of the high replication frequency (i.e. > Will it only have small files to replicate)? > > -----Original Message----- > From: solr-user-return-19721-laurent.vauthrin=disney....@lucene.apache.org > [mailto:solr-user-return-19721-laurent.vauthrin=disney....@lucene.apache.org] > On Behalf Of Noble Paul ??????? ?????? > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:04 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: More replication questions > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Vauthrin, Laurent > <laurent.vauth...@disney.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> >> >> I have a couple of questions relating to replication in Solr. As far as >> I understand it, the replication approach for both 1.3 and 1.4 involves >> having the slaves poll the master for updates to the index. We're >> curious to know if it's possible to have a more dynamic/quicker way to >> propagate updates. >> >> >> >> 1. Is there a built-in mechanism for pushing out >> updates(/inserts/deletes) received by the master to the slaves? > The pull mechanism in 1.4 can be good enough. The 'pollInterval' can > be as small as 1 sec. So you will get the updates within a second > .Isn't it not good enough? >> >> 2. Is it discouraged to post updates to multiple Solr instances? >> (all instances can receive updates and fulfill query requests) > This is prone to serious errors all the solr instances may not be in sync >> >> 3. If that sort of capability is not supported, why was it not >> implemented this way? (So that we don't repeat any mistakes) > A push based replication is in the cards. the implementation is not > trivial. In Solr commits are already expensive s a second's delay may > be alright . >> >> 4. Has anyone else on the list attempted to do this? The intent >> here is to achieve optimal performance while have the freshest data >> possible if that's possible. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Laurent >> >> > > > > -- > --Noble Paul > -- --Noble Paul
