Stop running 32-bit operating systems. You'll never get good performance with a toy like that. --wunder
On Sep 29, 2010, at 8:18 PM, newsam wrote: > Thanks for your reply. > > Our box is win server 2003 (32bits) and 6G RAM totally. Large heap (>2G) may > not be helpful for JVM in 32bits box. Therefore we set JAVA_OPTIONS to > "-Xms521m -Xmx1400m". Is my understanding right? > > Thanks. > >> From: Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> >> Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org, newsam <new...@zju.edu.cn> >> Subject: Re: Why the query performance is so different for queries? >> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:13:20 -0700 >> >> How much ram does the JVM have? >> >> Wildcard queries are slow. Starting with '*' are even slower. If you >> want all values try "field:[* TO *]". This is a range query and lets >> you pick a range of values- this picks everything. >> >> The "*:*" is not a wildcard. It is a magic syntax for "all documents" >> and does not cause a search. >> >> 2010/9/28 newsam > : >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I have posted a thread "The search response time is too long". >>> >>> >>> The SOLR searcher instance is deployed with Tomcat 5.5.21. >>> . >>> The index file is 8.2G. The doc num is 6110745. DELL Server has Intel(R) >>> Xeon(TM) CPU (4 cores) 3.00GHZ and 6G RAM. >>> >>> In SOLR back-end, "query=key:*" costs almost 60s while "query=*:*" only >>> needs 500ms. Another case is "query=product_name_title:*", which costs 7s. >>> I am confused about the query performance. Do you have any suggestions? >>> >>> btw, the cache setting is as follows: >>> >>> filterCache: 256, 256, 0 >>> queryResultCache: 1024, 512, 128 >>> documentCache: 16384, 4096, n/a >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Lance Norskog >> goks...@gmail.com >> -- Walter Underwood Venture ASM, Troop 14, Palo Alto
