Arf, I didn't see your attached tgz. In your slave solrconfig.xml, only the 'firstSearcher' contains the query. Add it also in the 'newSearcher', so that the new search instances will wait also after a new index is replicated.
The first request is long because the default faceting method uses the FieldCache for your facet fields. You may also choose to use the facet.method=enum The performance is globally worse than the 'fc' method, but you will avoid the very slow first request. Btw, it's far better to use the default 'enum' facet method. Hope this helps, Franck Le jeudi 29 mars 2012 à 13:57 +0200, fbrisbart a écrit : > 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 > > > >
