On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Jérôme Etévé <jerome.et...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Great, >> >> It went down to less than 10 secs now :) >> What I don't really understand is that my autowarmCount were pretty >> low ( like 128 ) and still the autowarming of the caches were very >> slow. >> >> Can you explain more why it can be that slow ? > > One possibility is a lack of physical memory available to the OS for > caching reads on both the old index and the new index. This would > cause all of the queries to be slower if they ended up doing real disk > IO for each query/filter being warmed.
Strange, we've got plenty of memory on this box and the swap is zero. But well, I'm happy we went around the problem. What's your experience with commits with ~10M docs ( and ~128 autowarming count in caches ) ? Cheers. Jerome. -- Jerome Eteve. Chat with me live at http://www.eteve.net jer...@eteve.net
