I do have a firstSearcher, but currently coldSearcher is set to true. But doesn't this just mean that that any searches will block while the first searcher is running? This is how the comment describes first searcher. It would almost give the same effect; that some searches take a long time.
What I am looking for is after receiving replicated data, do first searcher and then switch to new index. I will try with coldSearcher false, but I actually think I have already tried this. cheers, :-Dennis On Mar 29, 2012, at 13:57 , fbrisbart wrote: > If you add your query to the firstSearcher and/or newSearcher event > listeners in the slave > 'solrconfig.xml' ( > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCaching#newSearcher_and_firstSearcher_Event_Listeners > ), > > each new search instance will wait before accepting queries. > > Example to load the FieldCache for 'your_facet_field' field : > ... > <listener event="firstSearcher" class="solr.QuerySenderListener"> > <arr name="queries"> > <lst><str name="q">*:*</str><str name="facet">true</str><str > name="facet.field">your_facet_field</str></lst> > </arr> > </listener> > ... > > > Franck > > Le jeudi 29 mars 2012 à 13:30 +0200, Dennis Schafroth a écrit : >> Hi >> >> I am running indexing and facetted searching on bibliographic data, which is >> known not to perform to well due to the high facet count. Actually it's just >> the firstSearch that is horrible slow, 200+ seconds . After that, I am >> getting okay times (1 second) (at least in a few users scenario we have >> now). >> >> The current index is 54 millions record with approx. 10 millions unique >> authors. The facets (… _exact) is using the string type. >> >> I had hoped that a master (indexing) and slave (searching) would have solved >> the issue, but I am still seeing the issue on the slave, so I guess I must >> have misunderstood (or perhaps misconfigured) something >> >> I had thought that the slave would not switch to the new index until the >> auto warming was completed. Is such behavior possible? >> >> I guess a alternative solution could be to have multiple slaves and taking a >> slave off-line when doing replication, but if it is possible to do simpler >> (and using 1/3 less space) that would be great. Then again we might need >> multiple slaves with more requests. >> >> Attached is the configuration files. >> >> Let me know if there is missing information. >> >> cheers, >> :-Dennis Schafroth >> > > >
