The current default Lucene MergePolicy does not handle frequent updates well.
We have done some performance analysis with that and a custom merge policy: http://code.google.com/p/zoie/wiki/ZoieMergePolicy -John On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Jason Rutherglen < jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I opened SOLR-1447 for this > > 2009/9/18 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <noble.p...@corp.aol.com>: > > We can use a simple reflection based implementation to simplify > > reading too many parameters. > > > > What I wish to emphasize is that Solr should be agnostic of xml > > altogether. It should only be aware of specific Objects and > > interfaces. If users wish to plugin something else in some other way , > > it should be fine > > > > > > There is a huge learning involved in learning the current > > solrconfig.xml . Let us not make people throw away that . > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Jason Rutherglen > > <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Over the weekend I may write a patch to allow simple reflection based > >> injection from within solrconfig. > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Yonik Seeley > >> <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar > >>> <shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> I was wondering if there is a way I can modify calibrateSizeByDeletes > just > >>>>> by configuration ? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Alas, no. The only option that I see for you is to sub-class > >>>> LogByteSizeMergePolicy and set calibrateSizeByDeletes to true in the > >>>> constructor. However, please open a Jira issue and so we don't forget > about > >>>> it. > >>> > >>> It's the continuing stuff like this that makes me feel like we should > >>> be Spring (or equivalent) based someday... I'm just not sure how we're > >>> going to get there. > >>> > >>> -Yonik > >>> http://www.lucidimagination.com > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com > > >
