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 E8CBA197D1 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:12:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 72578 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2016 17:12:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 72507 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2016 17:12:53 -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 72496 invoked by uid 99); 19 Mar 2016 17:12:53 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:12:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 47D2CC0312 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:12:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.463 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.463 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[FROM_12LTRDOM=0.1, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY=1, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.363] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9QV_zdxpIE7j for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from intelcompute.com (server88-208-204-52.live-servers.net [88.208.204.52]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id B6FA85F24B for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cpc65125-nmal16-2-0-cust242.19-2.cable.virginm.net ([77.98.29.243] helo=[192.168.0.4]) by intelcompute.com with esmtpsa (UNKNOWN:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ahKQe-0001sd-Ih for solr-user@lucene.apache.org; Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:12:45 +0000 Message-ID: <56ED8886.9070806@intelcompute.com> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 17:12:38 +0000 From: Robert Brown User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Shard splitting for immediate performance boost? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I have an index of 60m docs split across 2 shards (each with a replica). When load testing queries (picking random keywords I know exist), and randomly requesting facets too, 95% of my responses are under 0.5s. However, during some random manual tests, sometimes I see searches taking between 1-2 seconds. Should I expect a simple shard split to assist with the speed immediately? Even with the 2 new shards still being on the original servers? Will move them to their own dedicated hosts, but just want to understand what I should expect during the process. Thanks, Rob