Well, this answer isn't much more satisfactory than "get more memory", but about all I can say is "try it and see".
Sure, make your caches very small and monitor memory and test it out. You'll get a sense of how fast (or slow) the queries are pretty quickly. Or you can get a ballpark estimate of what running without caches would do performance wise by simply measuring the first query after a restart. Because, unfortunately, "it depends" is the only accurate answer. It depends on how much sorting, faceting etc. you do as well as the queries themselves. Best Erick On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Mike Austin <mike.aus...@juggle.com> wrote: > I'm trying to push to get solr used in our environment. I know I could have > responses saying WHY can't you get more RAM etc.., but lets just skip those > and work with this situation. > > Our index is very small with 100k documents and a light load at the moment. > If I wanted to use the smallest possible RAM on the server, how would I do > this and what are the issues? > > I know that caching would be the biggest lose but if solr ran with no to > little caching, the performance would still be ok? I know this is a relative > question.. > This is the only application using java on this machine, would tuning java > to use less cache help anything? > I should set the cache settings low in the config? > Basically, what will having a very low cache hit rate do to search speed and > server performance? I know more is better and it depends on what I'm > comparing it to but if you could just answer in some way saying that it's > not going to cripple the machine or cause 5 second searches? > > It's on a windows server. > > > Thanks, > Mike >
