Hi Guys,

I have no problem changing it to 2. However, we are talking about two
different applications.

The Solr 4.7 has two applications: example and example-DIH. The application
example-DIH is the one I started with since it works with database.

The example-DIH has the default setting to 4.

Regards,




On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote:

> On 6/25/2015 10:27 AM, Wenbin Wang wrote:
> > To clarify the work:
> >
> > We are very early in the investigative phase, and the indexing is NOT
> done
> > continuously.
> >
> > I indexed the data once through Admin UI, and test the query. If I need
> to
> > index again, I can use curl or through the Admin UI.
> >
> > The Solr 4.7 seems to have a default setting of maxWarmingSearcher at 4.
>
> The example configs that come with Solr have been setting
> maxWarmingSearchers to 2 for the entire time I've been using Solr, which
> started five years ago with version 1.4.0.  That is the value that we
> see most often.  I have never seen an example config with 4, which is
> part of how Erick knows that your config has been modified.  Most people
> will not change that value unless they see an error message in their
> logs about maxWarmingSearchers, and normally when that error message
> appears, they are committing too frequently.  Adjusting
> maxWarmingSearchers is rarely the proper fix ... either committing less
> frequently or reducing the time required for each commit is the right
> way to fix it.  Reducing the commit time is not always easy, but
> reducing or eliminating cache autowarming will often take care of it.
> Erick mentioned this already.
>
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FAQ#What_does_.22exceeded_limit_of_maxWarmingSearchers.3DX.22_mean.3F
>
> More information than you probably wanted to know: The default
> maxWarmingSearchers value in the code (if you do not specify it in your
> config) is Integer.MAX_VALUE -- a little over 2 billion.  If the config
> doesn't specify, then there effectively is no limit.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>

Reply via email to