lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From wojtekpia <>
Subject RE: Throughput Optimization
Date Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:44:37 GMT

I'll try changing my other caches to LRUCache and observe performance.
Interestingly, the FastLRUCache has given me a ~10% increase in performance,
much lower than I've read on the SOLR-667 thread.

Would compressing some of my stored fields significantly improve
performance? Most of my stored fields contain single words or numbers, but I
do have one relatively large stored field that contains up to a couple
paragraphs of text.

I agree that my 3% query cache hit rate is quite low (probably
unrealistically low). I'm treating these results as the worst-case. 

Feak, Todd wrote:
> Yonik said something about the FastLRUCache giving the most gain for
> high hit-rates and the LRUCache being faster for low hit-rates. It's in
> his Nov 1 comment on SOLR-667. I'm not sure if anything changed since
> then, as it's an active issue, but you may want to try the LRUCache for
> your query cache.
> It sounds like you are memory bound already, but you may want to
> investigate the tradeoffs of your filter cache vs. document cache. High
> document hit-rate was a big performance boost for us, as document
> garbage collection is a lot of overhead. I believe that would show up as
> CPU usage though, so it may not be your bottleneck.
> This also brings up an interesting question. 3% hit rate on your query
> cache seems low to me. Are you sure your load test is mimicking
> realistic query patterns from your user base? I realize this probably
> isn't part of your bottleneck, just curious.

View this message in context:
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at

View raw message