[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7655?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

David Smiley updated SOLR-7655:
-------------------------------
    Attachment: SOLR-7655.patch

Here's a patch; a little better than the "suggested fix": the Terms returned 
could be null, and if an exception somehow gets thrown then we can log it 
without re-throwing.

I did a little performance testing on a project I have.  It seems this perf bug 
is most pronounced if you attempt to highlight on a ton of fields (e.g. via 
{{hl.fl=*}}), and if there are a lot of Lucene segments.  And furthermore if 
you don't have a lot of text to highlight per field then the overhead here is 
proportionally higher to the overall task.

Precommit is happy and the tests pass.  It'd be nice to get this into 5.2.1 but 
would like to see a +1 from someone.  What do you think [~shalinmangar] (you're 
the RM I believe).

As a side note... I'm wondering if SlowCompositeReaderWrapper ought to cache 
FieldInfos too; maybe lazyily.  

> Perf bug- DefaultSolrHighlighter.getSpanQueryScorer triggers 
> MultiFields.getMergedFieldInfos
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-7655
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7655
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: highlighter
>    Affects Versions: 5.0
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Assignee: David Smiley
>         Attachments: SOLR-7655.patch
>
>
> It appears grabbing the FieldInfos from the SlowCompositeReaderWrapper is 
> slow.  It isn't cached.  The DefaultSolrHighligher in SOLR-6196 (v5.0) uses 
> it to ascertain if there are payloads.  Instead it can grab it from the Terms 
> instance, which is cached.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to