lucene-solr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: good performance news
Date Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:27:21 GMT

On Aug 18, 2009, at 1:58 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള്‍  
नोब्ळ् wrote:

> I our internal testing , the binary request writer gave very good perf
> for large no:of docs.

Yeah, that only makes sense.  I was just curious on the overhead of  
XML in typical cases.  I think all the native clients should use  
binary format.

>
> Though we did not benchmark it
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Grant  
> Ingersoll<gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 16, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>>
>>> I just profiled a CSV upload, and aside from the CSV parsing, Solr
>>> adds pretty much no overhead!
>>> I was expecting some non-trivial overhead due to Solr's
>>> SolrInputDocument, update processing pipeline, and update handler...
>>> but profiling showed that it amounted to less than 1%.
>>>
>>> 85% of the time was spent in Lucene's IndexWriter
>>> 12% of the time was spent in the CSV parser2
>>
>> I'm curious how much overhead there is in parsing Solr XML.  I will  
>> try some
>> tests on that later if I get a chance.  We really should push  
>> clients to use
>> the Binary request/response formats in most cases.
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com



Mime
View raw message