lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Feak, Todd" <Todd.F...@smss.sony.com>
Subject RE: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:56:23 GMT
Kind of a side-note, but I think it may be worth your while.

If your queryResultCache hit rate is 65%, consider putting a reverse
proxy in front of Solr. It can give performance boosts over the query
cache in Solr, as it doesn't have to pay the cost of reformulating the
response. I've used Varnish with great results. Squid is another option.

-Todd Feak

-----Original Message-----
From: wojtekpia [mailto:wojtek_p@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:20 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
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:
http://www.nabble.com/Snapinstaller-vs-Solr-Restart-tp21315273p21319344.
html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



Mime
View raw message