Ted, "...- FREE!" is stupid idiot spam. It's annoying and not suitable.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought it was slightly clumsy, but it was informative. It seemed like a > fine thing to say. Effectively it was "I/we have developed a tool that > will help you solve your problem". That is responsive to the OP and it is > clear that it is a commercial deal. > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jason Rutherglen < > jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Wow the shameless plugging of product (footer) has hit a new low Otis. >> >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Otis Gospodnetic >> <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Hi Yury, >> > >> > Not sure if this was already covered in this thread, but with N smaller >> cores on a single N-CPU-core box you could run N queries in parallel over >> smaller indices, which may be faster than a single query going against a >> single big index, depending on how many concurrent query requests the box >> is handling (i.e. how busy or idle the CPU cores are). >> > >> > Otis >> > ---- >> > >> > Performance Monitoring SaaS for Solr - >> http://sematext.com/spm/solr-performance-monitoring/index.html >> > >> > >> > >> >>________________________________ >> >> From: Yury Kats <yuryk...@yahoo.com> >> >>To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> >>Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:58 PM >> >>Subject: Core overhead >> >> >> >>Does anybody have an idea, or better yet, measured data, >> >>to see what the overhead of a core is, both in memory and speed? >> >> >> >>For example, what would be the difference between having 1 core >> >>with 100M documents versus having 10 cores with 10M documents? >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
