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 4B94B106BD for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:43:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 95994 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2013 12:43:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 95920 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2013 12:43:20 -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 95908 invoked by uid 99); 13 Nov 2013 12:43:18 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:43:18 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of fbrisbart@bestofmedia.com designates 89.30.126.20 as permitted sender) Received: from [89.30.126.20] (HELO mail.bestofmedia.com) (89.30.126.20) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:43:13 +0000 Received: from mail.bestofmedia.com (unknown [10.42.42.42]) by mail.bestofmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFD3CCAF60 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:42:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.bestofmedia.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.bestofmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E14CCBD8E for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:42:51 +0100 (CET) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Subject:From:Reply-To:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Organization:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=OoHSSaYwi0Qzi84akNOykQIpSF2XwB9lxLEGgdvFT+hMkw+eIwds7BvEflkHyvvO/2KiBLz17Xb0WKT8jALw9NQNbhNoJcvvbNnbWQq18JCbjEMLd5SpAj26+J1GqItEiO4XH7nS3G0GPTnJ1zbAU4HV/ghvWW+1Be/MRAXFe/8=; c=simple; d=bestofmedia.com; q=dns; s=mail Received: from mail.bestofmedia.com (unknown [10.42.42.42]) by mail.bestofmedia.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DB4BDCD026D for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:42:50 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 26419 invoked by uid 78); 13 Nov 2013 12:42:50 -0000 Received: from 92.103.78.194 by bom-mail-tmp1 (envelope-from , uid 72) with qmail-scanner-2.01 (clamdscan: 0.90.1/2933. spamassassin: 3.1.5. Clear:RC:1(92.103.78.194):. Processed in 0.019831 secs); 13 Nov 2013 12:42:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.100.93?) (92.103.78.194) by mail.bestofmedia.com with SMTP; 13 Nov 2013 12:42:50 -0000 Message-ID: <1384346554.8138.37.camel@alix> Subject: Re: (info) lucene first search performance From: fbrisbart Reply-To: fbrisbart@bestofmedia.com To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:42:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20131113115912.85BF1816024@nike.apache.org> References: <20131113115912.85BF1816024@nike.apache.org> Organization: Bestofmedia Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Solr uses the MMap Directory by default. What you see is surely a filesystem cache. Once a file is accessed, it's memory mapped. Restarting solr won't reset it. On unix, you may reset this cache with=20 echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches Franck Brisbart Le mercredi 13 novembre 2013 =C3=A0 11:58 +0000, Jacky.J.Wang (mis.cnsh04.Newegg) 41361 a =C3=A9crit : > =20 >=20 > Dear lucene >=20 > =20 >=20 > In order to test the solr search performance =EF=BC=8CI closed all the = cache > solr >=20 >=20 >=20 > insert into the 10 million data=EF=BC=8Cand find the first search very > slowly=EF=BC=88700ms=EF=BC=89=EF=BC=8Cand the secondary search very qui= ck=EF=BC=8820ms=EF=BC=89=EF=BC=8CI am > sure no solr cache=E3=80=82 >=20 > This problem bothering me for a month=EF=BC=8C >=20 > =20 >=20 > Tracing the source code found >=20 > =20 >=20 > =E8=AF=B4=E6=98=8E: =E8=AF=B4=E6=98=8E: cid:image001.png@01CED80C.EF49C= 740 >=20 > Fisrt invoke readVIntBlock method always very slowly ,and secondary > invoke readVIntBlock method is very quick, I don't know what reason is > this >=20 > =20 >=20 > Eagerly awaiting your reply, thanks very much!!! >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20