Re: commit vs soft-commit

gt; /It does invalidate the "top level" caches, including the caches you > configure in solrconfig.xml. / > > Could you elucidate? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/commit-vs-soft-commit-tp4083817p4083844.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Re: commit vs soft-commit

Erik- /It does invalidate the "top level" caches, including the caches you configure in solrconfig.xml. / Could you elucidate? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/commit-vs-soft-commit-tp4083817p4083844.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list

Re: commit vs soft-commit

> > So this means that even with every softcommit a new searcher opens right? > > If > > it does, isn't it still very heavy? > > > > > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/commit-vs-soft-commit-tp4083817.html > > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > -- > -- > Shreejay Nair > Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse brevity and typos. >

Re: commit vs soft-commit

nc index files or write a new index descriptor./ > > So this means that even with every softcommit a new searcher opens right? > If > it does, isn't it still very heavy? > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/comm

commit vs soft-commit

d does not fsync index files or write a new index descriptor./ So this means that even with every softcommit a new searcher opens right? If it does, isn't it still very heavy? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/commit-vs-soft-commit-tp4083817.html Sent fr