OK. But SOLR has built-in caching. Do you not like the caching? What so you think we should change to the SOLR cache?
Bill On 8/10/11 9:16 AM, "didier deshommes" <dfdes...@gmail.com> wrote: >Consider putting a cache (memcached, redis, etc) *in front* of your >solr slaves. Just make sure to update it when replication occurs. > >didier > >On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:07 PM, arian487 <akarb...@tagged.com> wrote: >> I'm wondering if the caches on all the slaves are replicated across >>(such as >> queryResultCache). That is to say, if I hit one of my slaves and cache >>a >> result, and I make a search later and that search happens to hit a >>different >> slave, will that first cached result be available for use? >> >> This is pretty important because I'm going to have a lot of slaves and >>if >> this isn't done, then I'd have a high chance of running a lot uncached >> queries. >> >> Thanks :) >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >>http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Cache-replication-tp3240708p3240708.ht >>ml >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>
