On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> wrote: > You'll want to ensure that your autowarmCount value on Solr's caches is low > enough that each commit happens quickly. If it takes 5000 milliseconds to > warm the caches when you commit, then you want to be sure that you are > committing less often than that, or you'll quickly reach your > maxWarmingSearchers config value. If the commits are happening VARY > quickly, you may need to set autowarmCount to 0, and possibly disable caches > entirely. >
I see. This seems to be the opposite of the approach that I was taking. >>> I went poking in the code, and it seems that maxWarmingSearchers >>> defaults to Integer.MAX_VALUE. I'm not sure whether this is a bad >>> default or not. It does mean that a pathological setup without >>> maxWarmingSearchers in the config will probably blow up with an >>> OutOfMemory exception, but is that better or worse than commits that >>> don't make new documents searchable? I can see arguments either way. >> >> >> This is interesting, what you found is that the value in the stock >> solrconfig.xml file differs from the Solr default value. I think that >> this is bad practice: a single default should be decided upon and Solr >> should use this value when nothing is specified in solrconfig.xml, and >> that _same_value_ should be specified in the stock solrconfig.xml. Is >> it not a reasonable assumption that this would be the case? > > > That was directed more at the other committers. I would argue that either a > low number or a relatively high number should be the default, but not > MAX_VALUE. The example config should have a commented out section for > maxWarmingSearchers that mentions the default. I'm having the same > discussion about maxBooleanClauses on SOLR-4586. > Right. > It's possible that this has already been discussed, and that everyone > prefers that a badly configured setup will eventually have a spectacular > blow up with OutOfMemory, rather than semi-silently ignoring commits. A > searcher object contains caches and uses a lot of memory, so having lots of > them around will eventually use up the entire heap. > Silently dropping data is by far the worse choice, I agree, especially as a default setting. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com
