Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-04-09 Thread sunnyfr
.apache.org >> Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 5:18:26 PM >> Subject: Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart >> >> >> I'm optimizing because I thought I should. I'll be updating my index >> somewhere between every 15 minutes, and every 2 hours. That means between

Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-01-06 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
r-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 5:18:26 PM > Subject: Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart > > > I'm optimizing because I thought I should. I'll be updating my index > somewhere between every 15 minutes, and every 2 hours. That means between 12 > an

Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-01-06 Thread wojtekpia
n't turn off autowarming the way you have. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Snapinstaller-vs-Solr-Restart-tp21315273p21320334.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

RE: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-01-06 Thread Feak, Todd
27;ve used Varnish with great results. Squid is another option. -Todd Feak -Original Message- From: wojtekpia [mailto:wojte...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:20 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart I use my warm up queries to fill the f

Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-01-06 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
off autowarming the way you have. Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch - Original Message > From: wojtekpia > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 4:20:18 PM > Subject: Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart > >

Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-01-06 Thread wojtekpia
sn't that imply that you have > very low hit rate and therefore don't care to autowarm? And if you have a > very low hit rate, then perhaps caches are not needed at all? > > > How about this. Do you optimize your index at any point? > -- View this message in context:

Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-01-06 Thread Otis Gospodnetic
u optimize your index at any point? Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch - Original Message > From: wojtekpia > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2009 1:07:28 PM > Subject: RE: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart > >

RE: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-01-06 Thread wojtekpia
and the post-commit behavior. This > affects what's in memory, caches, etc. > > -Todd Feak > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Snapinstaller-vs-Solr-Restart-tp21315273p21315654.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

RE: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-01-06 Thread Feak, Todd
From: wojtekpia [mailto:wojte...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:46 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart I'm running load tests against my Solr instance. I find that it typically takes ~10 minutes for my Solr setup to "warm-up" w

Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart

2009-01-06 Thread wojtekpia
ff restarting Solr rather than running Snapinstaller. Any ideas why? Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Snapinstaller-vs-Solr-Restart-tp21315273p21315273.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.