Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 46209 invoked from network); 6 Jan 2009 21:42:39 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Jan 2009 21:42:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 34171 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2009 21:42:34 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 34134 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2009 21:42:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 34123 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jan 2009 21:42:34 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:42:34 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [206.190.39.214] (HELO web50312.mail.re2.yahoo.com) (206.190.39.214) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:42:25 +0000 Received: (qmail 52870 invoked by uid 60001); 6 Jan 2009 21:42:04 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=QzwYxBBikXgbLTLR184sN8+20xRAwJqi0j3Cu+dstliGKFKhnDfebstalGHtFnddsDGvo2F7zV87fywn1xIYIHj1iwT/dE8XiWKnh9yr0Cw5576DSa+PZJIwTJgAzkOkvH9/+cnFli003GwVAxN9vPkvCfYCqiPUrjUreNoaftE=; X-YMail-OSG: adV7FqkVM1lpAxOdImOOGSY8oXnUwoiGXUksfW9mfIEv1gMqwMKUYMQKwXEltKhFwVx3T80RXqXBlhQgLMsPvZcBOk6iLXN2qr6XdvcSEaGWHhnvoOI5rzoA.4sWszojTjkq2Wt27M09qCXdo4wbNsWINBzaKRVyyWCs4u2XCPZQJ5CsmMmZu51tSZK0aeuFdfO1LVdwsnC6b4WvrBg5.ZaoPuHT Received: from [167.206.188.3] by web50312.mail.re2.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:42:04 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1155.45 YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 References: <21315273.post@talk.nabble.com> <8599F2E4E80ECC44AEE81FA2974CE2BD0C961C27@mail-sd1.ad.soe.sony.com> <21315654.post@talk.nabble.com> <568520.68532.qm@web50303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <21319344.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:42:04 -0800 (PST) From: Otis Gospodnetic Subject: Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <498838.52642.qm@web50312.mail.re2.yahoo.com> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 have. Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch ----- Original Message ---- > From: wojtekpia > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > 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: > http://www.nabble.com/Snapinstaller-vs-Solr-Restart-tp21315273p21319344.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.