lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Høydahl / Cominvent <jan....@cominvent.com>
Subject Re: improving search response time
Date Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:31:45 GMT
It is crucial to MEASURE your system to confirm your bottleneck.
I agree that you are very likely to be disk I/O bound with such little
memory left for the OS, a large index and many terms in each query.

Have your IT guys do some monitoring on your disks and log this while
under load. Then you should easily be able to see whether disk I/O
is peaking while CPU is health.

You should also look into whether you can shorten down your query size:

+((tags:case^1.2 | authors:case^7.5 | title:case^65.5 | matchAll:case |
keywords:case^2.5 | meshterm:case^3.2 | abstract1:case^9.5)~0.01
(tags:studi^1.2 | authors:study^7.5 | title:study^65.5 | matchAll:study |
keywords:studi^2.5 | meshterm:studi^3.2 | abstract1:studi^9.5)~0.01
(tags:research^1.2 | authors:research^7.5 | title:research^65.5 |
matchAll:research | keywords:research^2.5 | meshterm:research^3.2 |
abstract1:research^9.5)~0.01) (tags:"case studi research"~50^1.2 |
authors:"case study research"~50^7.5 | title:"case study research"~50^65.5 |
matchAll:case study research | keywords:"case studi research"~50^2.5 |
meshterm:"case studi research"~50^3.2 | abstract1:"case studi
research"~50^9.5)~0.01 (sum(sdouble(yearScore)))^1.1
(sum(sdouble(readerScore)))^2.0

Do you need "pf" at all? Can you smash together similarly weighted fields
with copyfield into a new one, reducing the number of fiels to lookup
from 7 to perhaps 5?

--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
Training in Europe - www.solrtraining.com

On 19. aug. 2010, at 16.58, Muneeb Ali wrote:

> 
> Thanks for your input guys. I will surely try these suggestions, in
> particular, reducing heap size JAVA_OPTION and adjusting cache sizes to see
> if that makes a difference. 
> 
> I am also considering upgrading RAM for slave nodes, and also looking into
> moving from SATA enterprise HDD to SSD flash/DRAM storage... Is anyone using
> SSDs for solr application?
> 
> What would be a better route to take? more memory or flash based SSD hard
> drive?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Muneeb
> 
> 
> -- 
> View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/improving-search-response-time-tp1204491p1226372.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message