Sounds like we disagree. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Jason Rutherglen < jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ted, > > "...- FREE!" is stupid idiot spam. It's annoying and not suitable. > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >
