Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F560D7A7 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:42:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 44160 invoked by uid 500); 30 Aug 2012 09:42:23 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 44110 invoked by uid 500); 30 Aug 2012 09:42:22 -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 44095 invoked by uid 99); 30 Aug 2012 09:42:22 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:42:22 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [98.138.90.63] (HELO nm29-vm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com) (98.138.90.63) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:42:13 +0000 Received: from [98.138.90.51] by nm29.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2012 09:41:51 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.163] by tm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2012 09:41:51 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1064.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 30 Aug 2012 09:41:51 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 510401.64673.bm@omp1064.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 36834 invoked by uid 60001); 30 Aug 2012 09:41:51 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1346319711; bh=CCEzhkn0rgFBCvZ90O2Aokd7UCndUZ81KVW7fABzw3s=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=5D+zyUDk2yM+s6vCB65UYfS3BO/hF8SmjuV+NUAwtO/r+GAkhOM4Q1WqVfRcvADcqU3IAA0xSDXpz/rPdjgXKbK2u8JRbjRZVy3pMkPvmgFHEMAFBOQZQ/uZDhX3kU88gTbhtPcPuo8Nw76f2IHxbTUUSuJ+yHQV+pPjPeeP6lE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=KJztGN0y2vMLPEKPrWrQeMBC0UtuG64x0lXkrPuFQWkTVjgqXcwdWFN91sBdjI5O2Mck+HmjxjRPKc4zcAmsz8fLrfDQ/mFD4IYTfYKAvBR0vs0yeYeG4xxowVzQUz74yh8AT8eihmgaVDrK94GPOae6J+dbdfdDYZGhx9faUo8=; X-YMail-OSG: S907NrMVM1ndK4760fwocqGn1uo7HlvjqT6vukM2rxHETu8 WuLTX8TgoH1wY1GtzuDkJyc7C8.25qkiw6XQZZ6HEX4tUiAfmr5wuZQLF0NG lIzFZGGGtE43DefYeGSvTQW8z5gkSU7bpE0PRo8oRNgBB6EAu9cH5i.axGXN 5lxlJ_siS3U848oBNN85F.wURP_SRfXwPPuf_wO597OKmkhQNK5rlIzqIvbx FXCp.ZzcwYAHax0tuPC22qjdO5erLINwIAdf_RzxsZ79COOlRJhrrQiq1Kc5 89_hZpA8x8RiqvlyG_ptM8g0bDEUrubmyf4eNbwNxv_6KU9.Jvyy63iWKNCk 0GLGQmD3r63qZ5eY4AaXuXVSV.95jGvzHXQXDwUskzD0NnT4r9EQVNL15NFI tN0pKpFvYJIEdl_YWQW1ue_WpX3hoRIsXTZO_Zx.fCDaQYNFqFrF6YrNh2Yc fUx4V_UB3aBmBq2nzt0kA_9FLRvasfJPTuSLnieYPuEhZ3GR596T.F0S3rs3 f0M4jUqCtR7ZkZ_PlDgwqJ71kViDuxel7tNEkSNuOLnrHfbaolHa1Iw-- Received: from [78.3.73.238] by web126001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 02:41:51 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.121.416 References: Message-ID: <1346319711.32013.YahooMailNeo@web126001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 02:41:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Otis Gospodnetic Reply-To: Otis Gospodnetic Subject: Re: optimum solr core size To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jame,=0A=0AThat really depends on your hardware, query load and profile, se= arch latency and other performance requirements.=0A=0AThat said, a 123 GB c= ore is a pretty big core :)=0A=0AOtis=0A----=0APerformance Monitoring for S= olr / ElasticSearch / HBase - http://sematext.com/spm=A0=0A=0A=0A=0A----- O= riginal Message -----=0A> From: jame vaalet =0A> To: = solr-user@lucene.apache.org=0A> Cc: =0A> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:= 40 AM=0A> Subject: optimum solr core size=0A> =0A> Hi,=0A> I have got singe= l core solr deployment in production and the documents are=0A> getting adde= d daily (around 1 million entries per week). My core size has=0A> approache= d 123 GB, i would like to know what would be the optimum size of a=0A> sing= le core (not the number of docs but the size of the index file) to=0A> star= t a new core.=0A> =0A> -- =0A> =0A> -JAME=0A>