Hi, Beware that Solr4.0 branch has multiple RAM conserving optimizations which may cause your index to take considerably less space, so try it out. Also, of course, prune your schema to turn off everything you don't need, and also your OS to stop services you don't use. Consider disallowing certain type of queries from the clients (such as wildcard, sorting, fuzzy etc) to avoid getting int high-mem situations.
-- Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com On 11. sep. 2011, at 17:59, Erick Erickson wrote: > Well, this answer isn't much more satisfactory than "get more memory", > but about all I can say is "try it and see". > > Sure, make your caches very small and monitor memory and test it out. > > You'll get a sense of how fast (or slow) the queries are pretty quickly. Or > you can get a ballpark estimate of what running without caches would > do performance wise by simply measuring the first query after a restart. > > Because, unfortunately, "it depends" is the only accurate answer. It > depends on how much sorting, faceting etc. you do as well as the > queries themselves. > > Best > Erick > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Mike Austin <mike.aus...@juggle.com> wrote: >> I'm trying to push to get solr used in our environment. I know I could have >> responses saying WHY can't you get more RAM etc.., but lets just skip those >> and work with this situation. >> >> Our index is very small with 100k documents and a light load at the moment. >> If I wanted to use the smallest possible RAM on the server, how would I do >> this and what are the issues? >> >> I know that caching would be the biggest lose but if solr ran with no to >> little caching, the performance would still be ok? I know this is a relative >> question.. >> This is the only application using java on this machine, would tuning java >> to use less cache help anything? >> I should set the cache settings low in the config? >> Basically, what will having a very low cache hit rate do to search speed and >> server performance? I know more is better and it depends on what I'm >> comparing it to but if you could just answer in some way saying that it's >> not going to cripple the machine or cause 5 second searches? >> >> It's on a windows server. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Mike >>
