is faster than traditional stored fields.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p4106866.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Any ideas?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p4106968.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3616192.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:47 AM, ku3ia dem...@gmail.com wrote:
So, based on p.2) and on my previous researches, I conclude, that the more
documents I want to retrieve, the slower is search and main problem is the
cycle in writeDocs method. Am I right? Can you advice something in this
.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3605074.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:32:22PM -0800, ku3ia wrote:
Uhm, either I misunderstand your question or you're doing
a lot of extra work for nothing
The whole point of sharding it exactly to collect the top N docs
from each shard and merge them into a single result [...]
P.S. Is any
this problem on my huge data, so I'm attempting to raise any ideas,
maybe, even these ideas are incorrect.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3600648.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive
: For example I have 4 shards. Finally, I need 2000 docs. Now, when I'm using
:
shards=127.0.0.1:8080/solr/shard1,127.0.0.1:8080/solr/shard2,127.0.0.1:8080/solr/shard3,127.0.0.1:8080/solr/shard4
: Solr gets 2000 docs from each shard (shard1,2,3,4, summary we have 8000
: docs) merge and sort it,
: So why do you have this 2,000 requirement in the first
: place? This really sounds like an XY problem.
I would really suggest re-visiting this question. No sinle user is going
to look at 2000 docs on a single page, and in your previous email you said
there was a requirement to ask solr for
: I had a similar requirement in my project, where a user might ask for up
: to 3000 results. What I did was change SolrIndexSearcher.doc(int, Set)
: to retrieve the unique key from the field cache instead of retrieving it
: as a stored field from disk. This resulted in a massive speed
:
mechanism, for example, to get top 100 rows from each shard,
only merge it, sort by defined at query filed or score and pull result to
the user?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3597893.html
Sent from the Solr
each shard?
P.S. Is any mechanism, for example, to get top 100 rows from each shard,
only merge it, sort by defined at query filed or score and pull result to
the user?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3597893
), but not 8000... That was my question.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3599636.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
... That was my question.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3599636.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I had a similar requirement in my project, where a user might ask for up to
3000 results. What I did was change SolrIndexSearcher.doc(int, Set) to retrieve
the unique key from the field cache instead of retrieving it as a stored field
from disk. This resulted in a massive speed improvement for
try it.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3599752.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3594683.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
to much queries per minute, or
row count or I made something wrong in my configs? And, can you please watch
drive speed on your indexes? Is it the same?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3594683.html
Sent from
:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3590028.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3592364.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
and falls to 500-700 KB/s in both tests.
Have you any ideas?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3592364.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3592734.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance-on-distributed-search-tp3590028p3592734.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
=a58641/int
int name=the45022/int
int name=i36339/int
int name=s35637/int
int name=d34247/int
int name=m33869/int
int name=b28961/int
int name=r28147/int
int name=e27654/int
int name=n26940/int
/lst
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Poor-performance
24 matches
Mail list logo
