lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shawn Heisey <>
Subject Re: In-memory collections?
Date Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:04:00 GMT
On 8/7/2013 12:13 AM, Per Steffensen wrote:
> Is there a way I can configure Solrs so that it handles its shared
> completely in memory? If yes, how? No writing to disk - neither
> transactionlog nor lucene indices. Of course I accept that data is lost
> if the Solr crash or is shut down.

The lucene index part can be done using RAMDirectoryFactory.  It's
generally not a good idea, though.  If you have enough RAM for that,
then you have enough RAM to fit your entire index into the OS disk
cache.  I don't think you can really do anything about the transaction
log being on disk, but I could be incorrect about that.

Relying on the OS disk cache and the default directory implementation
will usually give you equivalent or better query performance compared to
putting your index into JVM memory.  You won't need a massive Java heap
and the garbage collection problems that it creates.  A side bonus: you
don't lose your index when Solr shuts down.

If you have extremely heavy indexing, then RAMDirectoryFactory might
work better -- assuming you've got your GC heavily tuned.  A potentially
critical problem with RAMDirectoryFactory is that merging/optimizing
will require at least twice as much RAM as your total index size.

Here's a complete discussion about this:

NB: That article was written for 3.x, when NRTCachingDirectoryFactory
(the default in 4.x) wasn't available.  The NRT factory *uses*


View raw message