That's a great point. If SSDs are sufficient, then what does the "Index size vs Response time" curve look like? Since that would dictate the number of machines needed. I took a look at http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceData but only one use case seemed comparable. We currently have about 25M docs, split into 18 shards, with a total index size of about 120GB. If index size has truly little impact on performance then perhaps tagging articles with user IDs is a better way to approach my use case.
-Mike On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk>wrote: > On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 14:20 +0200, mike anderson wrote: > > [...] By my simple math, this would mean that if we want each shard's > > index to be able to fit in memory, [...] > > Might I ask why you're planning on using memory-based sharding? The > performance gap between memory and SSDs is not very big so using memory > to get those last queries/second is quite expensive. > >
