<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 100x Increase in SOLR Performance and Throughput</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.derivante.com/2009/04/27/100x-increase-in-solr-performance-and-throughput/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.derivante.com/2009/04/27/100x-increase-in-solr-performance-and-throughput/</link>
	<description>to obtain or receive from a source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:36:12 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Derivante &#187; SOLR Filtering Performance Increase</title>
		<link>http://www.derivante.com/2009/04/27/100x-increase-in-solr-performance-and-throughput/comment-page-1/#comment-141</link>
		<dc:creator>Derivante &#187; SOLR Filtering Performance Increase</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.derivante.com/?p=341#comment-141</guid>
		<description>[...] couple months ago I wrote about the terrible performance and a work around for SOLR / Lucene search engine. I discovered that performance would drop off a cliff while using [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] couple months ago I wrote about the terrible performance and a work around for SOLR / Lucene search engine. I discovered that performance would drop off a cliff while using [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: qf= vs fq=: &#171; Solrhack</title>
		<link>http://www.derivante.com/2009/04/27/100x-increase-in-solr-performance-and-throughput/comment-page-1/#comment-85</link>
		<dc:creator>qf= vs fq=: &#171; Solrhack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 16:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.derivante.com/?p=341#comment-85</guid>
		<description>[...] qf= vs&#160;fq=:  100 Times Performance Increase in Solr [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] qf= vs&nbsp;fq=:  100 Times Performance Increase in Solr [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Leider</title>
		<link>http://www.derivante.com/2009/04/27/100x-increase-in-solr-performance-and-throughput/comment-page-1/#comment-84</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Leider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 13:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.derivante.com/?p=341#comment-84</guid>
		<description>Jim,

I have benchmarked the performance differences between the old and new queries as well as their use of the fieldCache as well as the differences between single indexes and multi-core indexes. 

http://www.derivante.com/2009/05/05/solr-performance-benchmarks-single-vs-multi-core-index-shards/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim,</p>
<p>I have benchmarked the performance differences between the old and new queries as well as their use of the fieldCache as well as the differences between single indexes and multi-core indexes. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.derivante.com/2009/05/05/solr-performance-benchmarks-single-vs-multi-core-index-shards/" rel="nofollow">http://www.derivante.com/2009/05/05/solr-performance-benchmarks-single-vs-multi-core-index-shards/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Murphy</title>
		<link>http://www.derivante.com/2009/04/27/100x-increase-in-solr-performance-and-throughput/comment-page-1/#comment-83</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Murphy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 May 2009 11:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.derivante.com/?p=341#comment-83</guid>
		<description>Does your new query style take advantage of the filterCache as well a the old one did?  I guess if overall perf is 100x better who cares. :)

Nice, We do similar things with our queries.  I&#039;ll see if this applies in our case.  +1 to understanding whats going on before optimizing!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does your new query style take advantage of the filterCache as well a the old one did?  I guess if overall perf is 100x better who cares. <img src='http://www.derivante.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Nice, We do similar things with our queries.  I&#8217;ll see if this applies in our case.  +1 to understanding whats going on before optimizing!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->