What Erick said.  That's a giant Filter Cache.  Have a look at these Solr
metrics and note the Filter Cache in the middle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/otis/8409088080/

Note how small the cache is and how high the hit rate is.  Those are stats
for http://search-lucene.com/ and http://search-hadoop.com/ where you can
see facets on the right that and up being used as filter queries.  Most
Solr apps I've seen had small Filter Caches.

Otis
--
Performance Monitoring * Log Analytics * Search Analytics
Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/


On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote:

> This, BTW, is an ENORMOUS number cached queries.
>
> Here's a rough guide:
> Each entry will be (length of query) + maxDoc/8 bytes long.
>
> Think of the filterCache as a map where the key is the query
> and the value is a bitmap large enough to hold maxDoc bits.
>
> BTW, I'd kick this back to the default (512?) and periodically check
> it with the admin>>plugins/stats page to see what kind of hit ratio
> I have and adjust from there.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Benjamin Wiens
> <benjamin.wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How can we calculate how much heap memory the filter cache will consume?
> We
> > understand that in order to determine a good size we also need to
> evaluate
> > how many filterqueries would be used over a certain time period.
> >
> >
> >
> > Here's our setting:
> >
> >
> >
> >     <filterCache
> >
> >       class="solr.FastLRUCache"
> >
> >       size="300000"
> >
> >       initialSize="300000"
> >
> >       autowarmCount="50000"/>
> >
> >
> >
> > According to the post below, 53 GB of RAM would be needed just by the
> > filter cache alone with 1.4 million Docs. Not sure if this true and how
> > this would work.
> >
> >
> >
> > Reference:
> >
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/20999904/solr-filter-cache-fastlrucache-takes-too-much-memory-and-results-in-out-of-mem
> >
> >
> >
> > We filled the filterquery cache with Solr Meter and had a JVM Heap Size
> of
> > far less than 53 GB.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can anyone chime in and enlighten us?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> >
> > Ben Wiens & Benjamin Mosior
>

Reply via email to