But the solr did not have the im-memory index, I am right?
At 2012-02-08 16:17:49,"Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: >This is true with Lucene as it stands. It would be much faster if there >were a specialized in-memory index such as is typically used with high >performance search engines. > >On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Experience has shown that it is much faster to run Solr with a small >> amount of memory and let the rest of the ram be used by the operating >> system "disk cache". That is, the OS is very good at keeping the right >> disk blocks in memory, much better than Solr. >> >> How much RAM is in the server and how much RAM does the JVM get? How >> big are the documents, and how large is the term index for your >> searches? How many documents do you get with each search? And, do you >> use filter queries- these are very powerful at limiting searches. >> >> 2012/2/7 James <ljatreey...@163.com>: >> > Is there any practice to load index into RAM to accelerate solr >> performance? >> > The over all documents is about 100 million. The search time around >> 100ms. I am seeking some method to accelerate the respond time for solr. >> > Just check that there is some practice use SSD disk. And SSD is also >> cost much, just want to know is there some method like to load the index >> file in RAM and keep the RAM index and disk index synchronized. Then I can >> search on the RAM index. >> >> >> >> -- >> Lance Norskog >> goks...@gmail.com >>
