Thanks for the clarifications.

Another point I thought about is the disk efficiency of a serving a
random-IO. Many parallel threads could end-up hitting just one or two disks
in the cluster…

Think I can skip it safely for my work-loads.

--
Ravi

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Aaron McCurry <[email protected]> wrote:

> The ServiceExecutor (thread pool) put inside the IndexSearcher was an
> attempt at making the segments search in parallel when available.  However
> there is a limitation in Lucene that does not allow segment parallel
> searches when you are using Collectors.
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/lucene_solr_4_3_0/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/search/IndexSearcher.java#L595
>
> We override this method to allow for Tracing:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-blur/blob/master/blur-core/src/main/java/org/apache/blur/server/IndexSearcherCloseableBase.java#L46
>
> and here:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-blur/blob/master/blur-core/src/main/java/org/apache/blur/server/IndexSearcherCloseableSecureBase.java#L51
>
> I agree that if you are already running a lot of shards per server that if
> we were to enhance Lucene to allow for parallel searching of segments it
> could become counter productive.  I have seen underutilized systems that
> could take advantage of the parallel segment search, so as with any feature
> like this, it depends.  :-)
>
> Aaron
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Ravikumar Govindarajan <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Blur by default uses a SearchExecutor for IndexSearcher. I believe lucene
> > helps searching segments of a single shard in parallel.
> >
> > Our previous index was built on a lower version of lucene where such a
> > feature was absent and we ran sequential search per shard only…
> >
> > What is the general recommendation for blur? Is it advisable to use the
> > SearchExecutor? What will happen when there are many parallel queries for
> > different shards. Will SearchExecutor become a bottle-neck?
> >
> > Any help is much appreciated...
> >
> > --
> > Ravi
> >
>

Reply via email to