You could also try Solr 3.4 with RankingAlgorithm as this offers NRT. You can get more information about NRT for Solr 3.4 from here:

http://solr-ra.tgels.org/wiki/en/Near_Real_Time_Search_ver_3.x

Regards,

- Nagendra Nagarajayya
http://solr-ra.tgels.org
http://rankingalgorithm.tgels.org

On 2/5/2012 11:59 PM, prasenjit mukherjee wrote:
Thanks Otis. commitWithin  will definitely work for me ( as I
currently am using 3.4 version, which doesnt have NRT yet ).

Assuming that I use commitWithin=10secs, are you saying that the
continuous deletes ( without commit ) wont have any affect on
performance ?
I was under the impression that deletes just mark the doc-ids (
essentially means that the index size will remain the same ) , but
wont actually do the compaction till someone calls optimize/commit, is
my assumption  not true ?

-Thanks,
Prasenjit

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Otis Gospodnetic
<otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com>  wrote:
Hi Prasenjit,

It sounds like at this point your main enemy might be those per-doc-add commits.  Don't 
commit until you need to see your new docs in results.  And if you need NRT then use 
softCommit option with Solr trunk 
(http://search-lucene.com/?q=softcommit&fc_project=Solr) or use commitWithin to limit 
commit's "performance damage".


  Otis

----
Performance Monitoring SaaS for Solr - 
http://sematext.com/spm/solr-performance-monitoring/index.html



________________________________
From: prasenjit mukherjee<prasen....@gmail.com>
To: solr-user<solr-user@lucene.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2012 1:17 AM
Subject: effect of continuous deletes on index's read performance

I have a use case where documents are continuously added @ 20 docs/sec
( each doc add is also doing a commit )  and docs continuously getting
deleted at the same rate. So the searchable index size remains the
same : ~ 400K docs ( docs for last 6 hours ~ 20*3600*6).

Will it have pauses when deletes triggers compaction. Or with every
commits ( while adds ) ? How bad they will effect on search response
time.

-Thanks,
Prasenjit





Reply via email to