I thought it was slightly clumsy, but it was informative. It seemed like a fine thing to say. Effectively it was "I/we have developed a tool that will help you solve your problem". That is responsive to the OP and it is clear that it is a commercial deal.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jason Rutherglen < jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wow the shameless plugging of product (footer) has hit a new low Otis. > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Otis Gospodnetic > <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hi Yury, > > > > Not sure if this was already covered in this thread, but with N smaller > cores on a single N-CPU-core box you could run N queries in parallel over > smaller indices, which may be faster than a single query going against a > single big index, depending on how many concurrent query requests the box > is handling (i.e. how busy or idle the CPU cores are). > > > > Otis > > ---- > > > > Performance Monitoring SaaS for Solr - > http://sematext.com/spm/solr-performance-monitoring/index.html > > > > > > > >>________________________________ > >> From: Yury Kats <yuryk...@yahoo.com> > >>To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >>Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:58 PM > >>Subject: Core overhead > >> > >>Does anybody have an idea, or better yet, measured data, > >>to see what the overhead of a core is, both in memory and speed? > >> > >>For example, what would be the difference between having 1 core > >>with 100M documents versus having 10 cores with 10M documents? > >> > >> > >> >
