Ok, I'll give it a try, as this is a server I am willing to risk.
How is the competability between solrj of bulkpostings, trunk, 3.1 and 1.4.1?

On Friday, April 22, 2011, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Ofer Fort <o...@tra.cx> wrote:
>> So I'm guessing my best approach now would be to test trunk, and hope
>> that as 3.1 cut the performance in half, trunk will do the same
>
> Trunk prob won't be much better... but the bulkpostings branch
> possibly could be.
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May
> 25-26, San Francisco
>
>> Thanks for the info
>> Ofer
>>
>> On Friday, April 22, 2011, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Ofer Fort <o...@tra.cx> wrote:
>>>> Well, it was worth the try;-)
>>>> But will using the facet.method=fc, will reducing the subset size
>>>> reduce the time and memory? Meaning is it an O( ndocs of the set)?
>>>
>>> facet.method=fc builds a multi-valued fieldcache like structure
>>> (UnInvertedField) the first time, that
>>> is used for counting facets for all subsequent requests.  So the
>>> faceting time (after the first time) is O(ndocs of the set),
>>> but the UnInvertedField singleton uses a large amout of memory
>>> unrelated to any particular base docset.
>>>
>>> -Yonik
>>> http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May
>>> 25-26, San Francisco
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2011, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Ofer Fort <o...@tra.cx> wrote:
>>>>>> So if i want to use the facet.method=fc, is there a way to speed it up? 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> remove the bucket size limitation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really - else we would have done it already ;-)
>>>>> We don't really have great methods for faceting on full-text fields
>>>>> (as opposed to shorter meta-data fields) today.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Yonik
>>>>> http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May
>>>>> 25-26, San Francisco
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to