I agree, should have made it clear in my initial post. The reason I thought it's little trivial since the newly introduced collection has only few hundred documents and is not being used in search yet. Neither it's being indexed at a regular interval. The cache parameters are kept to a minimum as well. But there might be overheads of a simply creating a collection which I'm not aware of.
I did bring down the heap size to 8gb, changed to G1 and reduced the cache params. The memory so far has been holding up but will wait for a while before passing on a judgment. <filterCache class="solr.FastLRUCache" size="256" initialSize="256" autowarmCount="0"/> <queryResultCache class="solr.LRUCache" size="256" initialSize="256" autowarmCount="0"/> <documentCache class="solr.LRUCache" size="256" initialSize="256" autowarmCount="0"/> <cache name="perSegFilter" class="solr.search.LRUCache" size="10" initialSize="0" autowarmCount="10" regenerator="solr.NoOpRegenerator" /> <fieldValueCache class="solr.FastLRUCache" size="256" autowarmCount="256" showItems="0" /> The change seemed to have increased the number of slow queries (1000 ms), but I'm willing to address the OOM over performance at this point. One thing I realized is that I provided the wrong index size here. It's 49gb instead of 25, which I mistakenly picked from one shard. I hope the heap size will continue to sustain for the index size. -- Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
