Heh, the "it depends" answer :-) Thanks for the clarification.
Upayavira On Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 05:01 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > I think it really depends - if you are gong for very fast visibility, > your going to spend a bunch of time warming, and then just throw it out > before it even gets much if any reuse. For very fast visibility > turnaround, I suspect you don't want to do any warming. I think it > depends on many things. > > One of the tradeoffs off using a very fast soft commit is that Sol's std > caches will not be nearly as useful. > > - Mark > > On Jan 10, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > That's great Mark. Thx. One final question... all the stuff to do with > > autowarming and static warming of caches - I presume all of that > > configuration is still relevant (if less so) as you still need to warm > > caches on a soft commit, even if those caches are much smaller than they > > would be otherwise? > > > > Thanks! Upayavira > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 04:18 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> There is no need to open a Searcher because you are controlling > >> visibility through the faster 'soft' commit. That will reopen the reader > >> from the IndexWriter. Because of that, there is no reason to do a heavy, > >> non NRT Searcher reopen on hard commits. Essentially, the hard commit > >> becomes simply about periodically flushing the tlog and the soft commit > >> completely controls visibility. > >> > >> - Mark > >> > >> On Jan 10, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > >> > >>> And you don't need to open a searcher (openSearcher=false) because > >>> you've got caches built up already alongside the in-memory NRT segment > >>> which you can continue to use once the hard commit has happened? Is that > >>> correct? > >>> > >>> (sorry for hijacking the thread - hopefully it is somewhat relevant) > >>> > >>> Upayavira > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 02:18 PM, Mark Miller wrote: > >>>> Setup hard auto commit with openSeacher=false. I would do it at least > >>>> once a minute. Don't worry about the commit being out of sync on the > >>>> different nodes - you will be using soft commits for visibility. The hard > >>>> commits will just be about relieving the pressure on the tlog. > >>>> > >>>> - Mark > >>>> > >>>> On Jan 10, 2013, at 6:43 AM, gadde <gadde....@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> we have a SolrCloud with 3 nodes. we add documents to leader node and > >>>>> use > >>>>> commitwithin(100secs) option in SolrJ to add documents. AutoSoftCommit > >>>>> in > >>>>> SolrConfig is 1000ms. > >>>>> > >>>>> Transaction logs on replicas grew bigger than the index and we ran out > >>>>> of > >>>>> disk space in few days. Leader's tlogs are very small in few hundred > >>>>> MBs. > >>>>> > >>>>> The following post suggest hard commit is required for "relieving the > >>>>> memory > >>>>> pressure of the transactionlog" > >>>>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-is-softcommit-cluster-wide-for-the-collection-td4021584.html#a4021631 > >>>>> > >>>>> what is the best way to do a hard commit on this setup in SolrCloud? > >>>>> > >>>>> a. Through autoCommit in SolrConfig? which would cause hard commit on > >>>>> all > >>>>> the nodes at different times b. Trigger hard commit on leader while > >>>>> updating > >>>>> through SolrJ? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> Shyam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> View this message in context: > >>>>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-large-transaction-logs-tp4032160.html > >>>>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >>>> > >> >
