Marius: "I have copied the configuration from 1.4.1 to the 3.1." Does the Directory implementation show up in the JMX beans? In admin/statistics.jsp ? Or the Solr startup logs? (Sorry, don't have a Solr available.)
Yonik: > What platform are you on? I believe the Lucene Directory > implementation now tries to be smarter (compared to lucene 2.9) about > picking the best default (but it may not be working out for you for > some reason) Lance On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Marius van Zwijndregt > <pionw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello ! >> >> I'm new to the list, have been using SOLR for roughly 6 months and love it. >> >> Currently i'm setting up a 3.1 installation, next to a 1.4.1 installation >> (Ubuntu server, same JVM params). I have copied the configuration from 1.4.1 >> to the 3.1. >> Both version are running fine, but one thing ive noticed, is that the QTime >> on 3.1, is much slower for initial searches than on the (currently >> production) 1.4.1 installation. >> >> For example: >> >> Searching with 3.1; http://mysite:9983/solr/select?q=grasmaaier: QTime >> returns 371 >> Searching with 1.4.1: http://mysite:8983/solr/select?q=grasmaaier: QTime >> returns 59 >> >> Using debugQuery=true, i can see that the main time is spend in the query >> component itself (org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent). >> >> Can someone explain this, and how can i analyze this further ? Does it take >> time to build up a decent query, so could i switch to 3.1 without having to >> worry ? > > Thanks for the report... there's no reason that anything should really > be much slower, so it would be great to get to the bottom of this! > > Is this using the same index as the 1.4.1 server, or did you rebuild it? > > Are there any other query parameters (that are perhaps added by > default, like faceting or anything else that could take up time) or is > this truly just a term query? > > What platform are you on? I believe the Lucene Directory > implementation now tries to be smarter (compared to lucene 2.9) about > picking the best default (but it may not be working out for you for > some reason). > > -Yonik > http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May > 25-26, San Francisco > -- Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com
