Tiny shards have more ever head and aren't going to score results as accurately. On Nov 22, 2014 2:04 PM, "Yves Dorfsman" <y...@zioup.com> wrote:
> On 2014-11-22 09:35, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > Check out http://gibrown.com/2014/11/19/elasticsearch-the-broken-bits/ > > > > Good writing! Thanks. > > I wonder if there's any drawback from cutting indices in smaller (tiny?) > shards? > > My thinking is this: We don't really change data in our bigger indices, we > just keep adding to them, so ultimately as we re-build node, they should > all > have the same version of the old shards, which should make re-start, and > even > re-build from backups much faster. > > -- > http://yves.zioup.com > gpg: 4096R/32B0F416 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "elasticsearch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to elasticsearch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/5470DE32.5070902%40zioup.com > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elasticsearch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAPmjWd2b6Omqo5K-fp%3DM4%3D-MJvV_jfGjkCFHmu9u28g%3D5asJ6Q%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
