Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

We have 150GB solr db, and it's not terribly fast, even with a lot of hardware and optimization effort thrown at it.

Are any alternatives likely to be significantly faster?

share|improve this question

closed as not a real question by EEAA, Zoredache, voretaq7 Jul 28 '12 at 4:06

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Your question is too vague to answer in its current form. – user3914 May 21 '12 at 3:32

We switched to elasticsearch and couldn't be happier. It still uses lucene but can horizontally scale better since it has build in sharding. So it should work well if you have multiple nodes for a 150gig DB.

share|improve this answer

Well, changing search engine cannot make things fast by magic. To be fast your active indexes should fit in RAM.

I'd suggest you to re-view your indexing policy to reduce size and/or number of indexes in solr. Or if this is not possible - split indexes to multiple servers or get a server with enough RAM.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.