Well, that would definitely make the index bigger. Why don't you just try it and see? you should be able to see the effects with a reasonable subset of your docs...
Another thing to keep in mind is if you have any additions "stored=true" fields defined. Best Erick On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM, <alx...@aim.com> wrote: > Hi, > > It is the index folder. tlog is only a few MB. > > I have analysed all changed and found out that only one field in schema > was changed. > > This field in non cloud > <fieldType name="text" class="solr.TextField" positionIncrementGap="100"> > > was changed to > <fieldType name="text" class="solr.TextField" positionIncrementGap="100" > termVectors="true" termPositions="true" termOffsets="true"> > > in cloud to use fastVectorHighlighting. > > Is it possible that this change could double index size? > > Thanks. > Alex. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Høydahl <jan....@cominvent.com> > To: solr-user <solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > Sent: Mon, Mar 4, 2013 2:24 pm > Subject: Re: solr cloud index size is too big > > > Can you tell whether it's the "index" folder that is that large or is it > including the "tlog" transaction log folder? > If you have a huge transaction log, you need to start sending hard commits > more > often during indexing to flush the tlogs. > > -- > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com > > 4. mars 2013 kl. 04:16 skrev alx...@aim.com: > > > Hello, > > > > I had a non cloud collection index size around 80G for 15M documents with > solr-4.1.0. So, I decided to use solr cloud with two shards and sent to > solr the > following command > > > > curl ' > http://slave:8983/solr/admin/collections?action=CREATE&name=mycollection&numShards=2&replicationFactor=1&maxShardsPerNode=1 > ' > > > > I tried to put replicationFactor=0 but this command gave an error. After > reindexing, into two separate linux boxes with one instances of solr > running in > each of them I see that size of index in each shard is 90GB versus > expected 40GB > although each of the shards has half (7.5M) of documents. > > > > Any ideas what went wrong? > > > > Thanks. > > Alex. > > > >
