lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Otis Gospodnetic <>
Subject Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:42:04 GMT
OK, so that question/answer seems to have hit the nail on the head.  :)

When you optimize your index, all index files get rewritten.  This means that everything that
the OS cached up to that point goes out the window and the OS has to slowly re-cache the hot
parts of the index.  If you don't optimize, this won't happen.  Do you really need to optimize?
 Or maybe a more direct question: why are you optimizing?

Regarding autowarming, with such high fq hit rate, I'd make good use of fq autowarming.  The
result cache rate is lower, but still decent.  I wouldn't turn off autowarming the way you

Sematext -- -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch

----- Original Message ----
> From: wojtekpia <>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:20:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart
> I use my warm up queries to fill the field cache (or at least that's the
> idea). My filterCache hit rate is ~99% & queryResultCache is ~65%. 
> I update my index several times a day with no 'optimize', and performance is
> seemless. I also update my index once nightly with an 'optimize', and that's
> where I see the performance drop.
> I'll try turning autowarming on.
> Could this have to do with file caching by the OS? 
> Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> > 
> > Is autowarm count of 0 a good idea, though?
> > If you don't want to autowarm any caches, doesn't that imply that you have
> > very low hit rate and therefore don't care to autowarm?  And if you have a
> > very low hit rate, then perhaps caches are not needed at all?
> > 
> > 
> > How about this.  Do you optimize your index at any point?
> > 
> -- 
> View this message in context: 
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at

View raw message