n 8 Mar 2017, at 5:25 pm, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/2017 5:30 AM, Caruana, Matthew wrote:
>> After upgrading to 6.4.2 from 6.4.1, we’ve seen replication time for a
>> 200gb index decrease from 45 hours to 1.5 hours.
>
> Just to che
After upgrading to 6.4.2 from 6.4.1, we’ve seen replication time for a 200gb
index decrease from 45 hours to 1.5 hours.
> On 7 Mar 2017, at 20:32, Ishan Chattopadhyaya wrote:
>
> 7 March 2017, Apache Solr 6.4.2 available
>
> Solr is the popular, blazing fast, open source
ging area in the filesystem.
>
> cheers -- Rick
>
>
>> On 2017-03-03 03:00 AM, Caruana, Matthew wrote:
>> This is the current config:
>>
>>
>> 100
>> 1
>> > cl
if
any performance gain is worth it ;)...
And as I mentioned earlier, optimizing is unlikely to be related to
OOMs during indexing. You never know of course
Best,
Erick
On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 3:40 AM, Caruana, Matthew
<mcaru...@icij.org<mailto:mcaru...@icij.org>> wrote:
Than
Thank you, you’re right - only one of the four cores is hitting 100%. This is
the correct answer. The bottleneck is CPU exacerbated by an absence of
parallelisation.
> On 3 Mar 2017, at 12:32, Toke Eskildsen <t...@kb.dk> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-03-02 at 15:39 +, Caruana
> doing the grand optimize:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/IndexConfig+in+SolrConfig#IndexConfiginSolrConfig-MergingIndexSegments
>
> Regards,
> Alex.
>
> http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new and experienced
>
>
> O
ation that can require up to 3-times
>>> amount of disk during the processing.
>>>
>>> This is not to say yours is a valid question, which I am leaving to
>>> others to respond.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>Alex.
>>>
>>>
eaving to
>>> others to respond.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>Alex.
>>>
>>> http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new and experienced
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2 March 2017 at 10:04, Caruana, Matthew &l
doc index
> with an 8 GB heap (Java 8u121, G1 collector). I recommend a smaller heap so
> the OS can use that RAM to cache file buffers.
>
> wunder
> Walter Underwood
> wun...@wunderwood.org
> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
>
>
>> On Mar 2, 2017, at
cessing.
>>
>> This is not to say yours is a valid question, which I am leaving to
>> others to respond.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alex.
>>
>> http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new and experienced
>>
>>
>>
I’m currently performing an optimise operation on a ~190GB index with about 4
million documents. The process has been running for hours.
This is surprising, because the machine is an EC2 r4.xlarge with four cores and
30GB of RAM, 24GB of which is allocated to the JVM.
The load average has been
Many of our field values are large, so we want to use the unified highlighter
for its performance benefits. Development also seems to be focussed on that
highlighter.
> On 1 Mar 2017, at 19:07, Rick Leir wrote:
>
> Matthew, Is TVH term vector highlighter an option? Just a
We’re currently using copyField directives in our schema to copy the same text
to different fields that use different analysers. For example, assuming the
original field contained in the document payload sent to the update handler is
called “tika_output", it is copied to “text”,
13 matches
Mail list logo