Sachin Goyal commented on SOLR-11078:

Do we know why the point fields are less performant when it comes to simple 
field:value queries? Following [this 
 it seems that the point-fields are using some sort of 
[KD-trees|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-D-B-tree] and trie-fields use tries. 
So at a theoretical level, why are the point fields not performing in simple 
field:value queries, but doing great on the range side? (I did try to read some 
stuff on KD trees but could not gather much. Hence I am hoping to avoid reading 
more docs and code myself if someone more knowledgeable than me can share this 


Also, when trie-fields were first deprecated in favor of point-fields, what was 
the thought process at that time? I am just curious to know the initial chain 
of thought behind point-fields. So any Jira link etc would also be good to link 
with this issue. It would be good to link any performance tests done at that 
time and perhaps re-visit them?

> Solr query performance degradation since Solr 6.4.2
> ---------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: SOLR-11078
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11078
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>      Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public) 
>          Components: search, Server
>    Affects Versions: 6.6, 7.1
>         Environment: * CentOS 7.3 (Linux zasolrm03 3.10.0-514.26.2.el7.x86_64 
> #1 SMP Tue Jul 4 15:04:05 UTC 2017 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux)
> * Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.121-b13, mixed mode)
> * 4 CPU, 10GB RAM
> Running Solr 6.6.0 with the following JVM settings:
> java -server -Xms4G -Xmx4G -XX:NewRatio=3 -XX:SurvivorRatio=4 
> -XX:TargetSurvivorRatio=90 -XX:MaxTenuringThreshold=8 -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC 
> -XX:+UseParNewGC -XX:ConcGCThreads=4 -XX:ParallelGCThreads=4 
> -XX:+CMSScavengeBeforeRemark -XX:PretenureSizeThreshold=64m 
> -XX:+UseCMSInitiatingOccupancyOnly -XX:CMSInitiatingOccupancyFraction=50 
> -XX:CMSMaxAbortablePrecleanTime=6000 -XX:+CMSParallelRemarkEnabled 
> -XX:+ParallelRefProcEnabled -verbose:gc -XX:+PrintHeapAtGC 
> -XX:+PrintGCDetails -XX:+PrintGCDateStamps -XX:+PrintGCTimeStamps 
> -XX:+PrintTenuringDistribution -XX:+PrintGCApplicationStoppedTime 
> -Xloggc:/home/prodza/solrserver/../logs/solr_gc.log -XX:+UseGCLogFileRotation 
> -XX:NumberOfGCLogFiles=9 -XX:GCLogFileSize=20M 
> -Dsolr.log.dir=/home/prodza/solrserver/../logs -Djetty.port=8983 
> -DSTOP.PORT=7983 -DSTOP.KEY=solrrocks -Duser.timezone=SAST 
> -Djetty.home=/home/prodza/solrserver/server 
> -Dsolr.solr.home=/home/prodza/solrserver/../solr 
> -Dsolr.install.dir=/home/prodza/solrserver 
> -Dlog4j.configuration=file:/home/prodza/solrserver/../config/log4j.properties 
> -Xss256k -Xss256k -Dsolr.log.muteconsole 
> -XX:OnOutOfMemoryError=/home/prodza/solrserver/bin/oom_solr.sh 8983 
> /home/prodza/solrserver/../logs -jar start.jar --module=http
>            Reporter: bidorbuy
>            Priority: Major
>         Attachments: compare-6.4.2-6.6.0.png, core-admin-tradesearch.png, 
> jvm-stats.png, schema.xml, screenshot-1.png, screenshot-2.png, 
> screenshot-3.png, solr-6-4-2-schema.xml, solr-6-4-2-solrconfig.xml, 
> solr-7-1-0-managed-schema, solr-7-1-0-solrconfig.xml, solr-71-vs-64.png, 
> solr-sample-warning-log.txt, solr.in.sh, solrconfig.xml
> We are currently running 2 separate Solr servers - refer to screenshots:
> * zasolrm02 is running on Solr 6.4.2
> * zasolrm03 is running on Solr 6.6.0
> Both servers have the same OS / JVM configuration and are using their own 
> indexes. We round-robin load-balance through our Tomcats and notice that 
> Since Solr 6.4.2 performance has dropped. We have two indices per server 
> "searchsuggestions" and "tradesearch". There is a noticeable drop in 
> performance since Solr 6.4.2.
> I am not sure if this is perhaps related to metric collation or other 
> underlying changes. I am not sure if other high transaction users have 
> noticed similar issues.
> *1) zasolrm03 (6.6.0) is almost twice as slow on the tradesearch index:*
> !compare-6.4.2-6.6.0.png!
> *2) This is also visible in the searchsuggestion index:*
> !screenshot-1.png!
> *3) The Tradesearch index shows the biggest difference:*
> !screenshot-2.png!

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to