I'm doing the exact same migration... what I've accomplished so far 1. In solrconfig.xml i put <luceneMatchVersion>LUCENE_33</luceneMatchVersion> in the first line in the <config> branch. Warnings go like crazy if you don't do that. 2. Highlighter shows a deprecated warning, i'm still working on that. It works, but I'd like to use the new fastvectorhighlight wich i'm strugglin' to death right now 3. All my speed measures are doing exact the same. sometimes we lose 60ms, sometimes we gain 60ms, so it's about average. I'll rebuild the index from scratch to see differences maybe today or later this week 4. Since i had to turned termVectors="true" termPositions="true" termOffsets="true" in 3 fileds to use fastvectorhighlight, i expect speed gains in HL
2011/8/17 Samarendra Pratap <samarz...@gmail.com> > Hi we are planning to migrate from solr 1.4.1 to solr 3.3 and I am doing a > manual performance comparison. > > We have setup two different solr installations (1.4.1 and 3.3) on different > ports. > 1. Both have same index (old lucene format index) of around 20 GB with 10 > million documents and 60 fields (40 fields with indexed="true"). > 2. Both processes have max 4GB memory allocated (-Xms2048m -Xmx4096m) > 3. Both installation are on same server (8 processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 > CPU 930 @ 2.80GHz, 8GB RAM, 64 bit linux system) > 4. We are running solr 1.4.1 with collapsing patch > (SOLR-236-1_4_1.patch<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-236> > ). > > When I pass exactly similar query to both the servers one by one solr > 1.4.1 > is more efficient than solr 3.3. > Before I convert the index into LUCENE_33 format I thought it would be > good > to take the expert advice. > > Is there something which I should look into deeply? Or could this be > effect > of old index format with new version and should be ignored? > > When I used "debugQuery=true", it clearly shows > that org.apache.solr.handler.component.CollapseComponent (solr 1.4.1) > noticeably taking less time > than org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent (solr 3.3). > > I am testing this against simple queries without any faceting, > highlighting, collapsing etc. (* > > http://xxx.xxx:8983/solr/select/?q=Packaging%20Material,%20Supplies&qt=dismax&qf=category > > ^4.0&qf=keywords^2.0&qf=title^2.0&qf=smalldesc&qf=companyname&qf=usercategory&qf=usrpcatdesc&qf=city&qs=10&pf=category^4.0&pf=keywords^3&pf=title^3&pf=smalldesc^1.5&pf=companyname&pf=usercategory&pf=usrpcatdesc&pf=city&ps=0&bq=type:[149%20TO%201500]^3&start=0&rows=50&fl=title,smalldesc,id&debugQuery=true > *) > > Any insights by the experts would be greatly appreciated! > > Thanks in advance. > > -- > Regards, > Samar > -- *Alexei Martchenko* | *CEO* | Superdownloads ale...@superdownloads.com.br | ale...@martchenko.com.br | (11) 5083.1018/5080.3535/5080.3533
