Kind of a side-note, but I think it may be worth your while. If your queryResultCache hit rate is 65%, consider putting a reverse proxy in front of Solr. It can give performance boosts over the query cache in Solr, as it doesn't have to pay the cost of reformulating the response. I've used Varnish with great results. Squid is another option.
-Todd Feak -----Original Message----- From: wojtekpia [mailto:wojte...@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:20 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Snapinstaller vs Solr Restart I use my warm up queries to fill the field cache (or at least that's the idea). My filterCache hit rate is ~99% & queryResultCache is ~65%. I update my index several times a day with no 'optimize', and performance is seemless. I also update my index once nightly with an 'optimize', and that's where I see the performance drop. I'll try turning autowarming on. Could this have to do with file caching by the OS? Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > > Is autowarm count of 0 a good idea, though? > If you don't want to autowarm any caches, doesn't that imply that you have > very low hit rate and therefore don't care to autowarm? And if you have a > very low hit rate, then perhaps caches are not needed at all? > > > How about this. Do you optimize your index at any point? > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Snapinstaller-vs-Solr-Restart-tp21315273p21319344. html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
