Thanks folks! On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>wrote:
> That link appears to be foo'd, and I can't find the original doc. > > But others (mostly on the user's list historically) have seen very > significant > performance improvements with SSDs, *IF* the entire index doesn't fit > in memory. > > If your index does fit entirely in memory, there will probably be some > improvement when fetching stored fields, especially if the stored fields > are large. But I'm not sure the cost is worth the incremental speed > in this case.. Of course if you can get your IT folks to spring for SSDs, > go for it :) > > Best > Erick > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Daniel Skiles > <daniel.ski...@docfinity.com> wrote: > > I haven't tried it with Solr yet, but with straight Lucene about two > years > > ago we saw about a 40% boost in performance on our tests with no changes > > except the disk. > > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Rich Cariens <richcari...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> Ahoy ahoy! > >> > >> Does anyone have any experiences or stories they can share with the list > >> about how SSDs impacted search performance for better or worse? > >> > >> I found a Lucene SSD performance benchmark > >> doc< > >> > http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/SSD_performance?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=combined-disk-ssd.pdf > >> >but > >> the wiki engine is refusing to let me view the attachment (I get "You > >> are not allowed to do AttachFile on this page."). > >> > >> Thanks in advance! > >> > > >
