On Aug 18, 2009, at 1:58 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള്
नोब्ळ् wrote:
I our internal testing , the binary request writer gave very good perf
for large no:of docs.
Yeah, that only makes sense. I was just curious on the overhead of
XML in typical cases. I think all the native clients should use
binary format.
Though we did not benchmark it
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Grant
Ingersoll<gsing...@apache.org> wrote:
On Aug 16, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
I just profiled a CSV upload, and aside from the CSV parsing, Solr
adds pretty much no overhead!
I was expecting some non-trivial overhead due to Solr's
SolrInputDocument, update processing pipeline, and update handler...
but profiling showed that it amounted to less than 1%.
85% of the time was spent in Lucene's IndexWriter
12% of the time was spent in the CSV parser2
I'm curious how much overhead there is in parsing Solr XML. I will
try some
tests on that later if I get a chance. We really should push
clients to use
the Binary request/response formats in most cases.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com
