lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Vaillancourt <...@elementspace.com>
Subject Re: Redis as Solr Cache
Date Fri, 03 Jan 2014 01:24:00 GMT
This is a neat idea, but could be too close to lucene/etc.

You could jump up one level in the stack and use Redis/memcache as a
distributed HTTP cache in conjunction with Solr's HTTP caching and a proxy.
I tried doing this myself with Nginx, but I forgot what issue I hit - I
think "misses" needed logic outside of nginx but I didn't spend too much
time on it.

Tim


On 2 January 2014 07:51, Alexander Ramos Jardim <
alexander.ramos.jardim@gmail.com> wrote:

> You touched an interesting point. I am really assuming if a quick win
> scenario is even possible. But what would be the advantage of using Redis
> to keep Solr Cache if each node would keep it's own Redis cache?
>
>
> 2013/12/29 Upayavira <uv@odoko.co.uk>
>
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013, at 02:35 PM, Alexander Ramos Jardim wrote:
> > > While researching for Solr Caching options and interesting cases, I
> > > bumped
> > > on this https://github.com/dfdeshom/solr-redis-cache. Does anyone has
> > any
> > > experience with this setup? Using Redis as Solr Cache.
> > >
> > > I see a lot of advantage in having a distributed cache for solr. One
> solr
> > > node benefiting from the cache generated on another one would be
> > > beautiful.
> > >
> > > I see problems too. Performance wise, I don't know if it would be
> viable
> > > for Solr to write it's cache through the network on Redis Master node.
> > >
> > > And what about if I have Solr nodes with different index version
> looking
> > > at
> > > the same cache?
> > >
> > > IMO as long as Redis is useful, if it isn't to have a distributed
> cache,
> > > I
> > > think it's not possible to get better performance using it.
> >
> > This idea makes assumptions about how a Solr/Lucene index operates.
> > Certainly, in a SolrCloud setup, each node is responsible for its own
> > committing, and its caches exist for the timespan between commits. Thus,
> > the cache one node will need will not necessarily be the same as the one
> > that is needed by another node, which might have a commit interval
> > slightly out of sync with the first.
> >
> > So, whilst this may be possible, and may give some benefits, I'd reckon
> > that it would be a rather substantial engineering exercise, rather than
> > the quick win you seem to be assuming it might be.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Alexander Ramos Jardim
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message