Hi, Could you please start a new thread?
Thanks, Otis ----- Original Message ---- > From: sunnyfr <johanna...@gmail.com> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 10:20:06 AM > Subject: Re: Solr vs Sphinx > > > Hi guys, > > I work now for serveral month on solr and really you provide quick answer > ... and you're very nice to work with. > But I've got huge issue that I couldn't fixe after lot of post. > > My indexation take one two days to be done. For 8G of data indexed and 1,5M > of docs (ok I've plenty of links in my table but it takes such a long time). > > Second I've to do update every 20mn but every update represent maybe 20 > 000docs > and when I use the replication I must replicate all the new index folder > optimized because Ive too much datas updated and too much segment needs to > be generate and I have to merge datas. So I lost my cache and my CPU goes > mad. > > And I can't have more than 20request/sec. > > > > > Fergus McMenemie-2 wrote: > > > >>Something that would be interesting is to share solr configs for > >>various types of indexing tasks. From a solr configuration aimed at > >>indexing web pages to one doing large amounts of text to one that > >>indexes specific structured data. I could see those being posted on > >>the wiki and helping folks who say "I want to do X, is there an > >>example?". > >> > >>I think most folks start with the example Solr install and tweak from > >>there, which probably isn't the best path... > >> > >>Eric > > > > Yep a solr "cookbook" with lots of different example recipes. However > > these would need to be very actively maintained to ensure they always > > represented best practice. While using cocoon I made extensive use > > of the examples section of the cocoon website. However most of the, > > massive number of, examples represent obsolete cocoon practise. Or > > there were four or five examples doing the same thing in different > > ways with no text explaining the pros/cons of the different approaches. > > This held me, as a newcomer, back and gave a bad impression of cocoon. > > > > I was wondering about a performance hints page. I was caught by an > > issue indexing CSV content where the use of &overwrite=false made > > an almost 3x difference to my indexing speed. Still do not really > > know why! > > > >> > >>On May 15, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Mark Miller wrote: > >> > >>> In the spirit of good defaults: > >>> > >>> I think we should change the Solr highlighter to highlight phrase > >>> queries by default, as well as prefix,range,wildcard constantscore > >>> queries. Its awkward to have to tell people you have to turn those > >>> on. I'd certainly prefer to have to turn them off if I have some > >>> limitation rather than on. > > > > Yep I agree, all whizzy new features should ideally be on by default > > unless there is a significant performance penalty. It is not enough > > that to issue a default solrconfig.xml with the feature on, it has to > > be on by default inside the code. > > > >>> > >>> - Mark > >> > >>----------------------------------------------------- > >>Eric Pugh | Principal | OpenSource Connections, LLC | 434.466.1467 | > http://www.opensourceconnections.com > >>Free/Busy: http://tinyurl.com/eric-cal > > > > Fergus > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Solr-vs-Sphinx-tp23524676p23852364.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
