Hey, maybe it is possible to exclude the segment statistics (if you do not need them) and not run into that performance problem as a quick hack...
--Alex On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:54 PM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > Interesting fact is that your stacktraces point to a Lucene 3.x field RAM > size estimator method, which might have some yet not identified issues. > This indicates to me that you still have an index originating from an early > ES version (<0.90?) > > If possible, I recommend to reindex data with 1.0.0.RC2, to benefit from a > fresh built Lucene 4.6.1 index. > > Jörg > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "elasticsearch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAKdsXoHt7%2BL4khCySG7A%2BpjHQ%3DJLLmQ3wq8LQOSrrstx5dj%3DiQ%40mail.gmail.com > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/CAGCwEM8HcJqgmPQ7Wj8LRC%3D%2Bkso9L3ndMN_mwjQj2cJjAZUFig%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
