There is some work on reporting this through the Codahale Graphics system. For us, that is way way better than a Solr-specific metrics interface.
wunder On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > Yonik: > > Yes, but correlating these is a bit awkward. My notion is it would be > useful to have this in a debug response and avoid having to > reconcile things from log files.... Perhaps Shawn's idea > would be a good thing to put in a (new?) debug section rather than > re-purpose the QTime which we all know and love. > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Otis Gospodnetic > <[email protected]> wrote: >> This sounds attractive to me. What other times are you thinking about, >> Shawn? >> >> I think this type of info should be owned by Solr and one should not >> rely on Jetty. Plus the plan is to ditch the servlet container >> anyway. >> >> Otis >> -- >> Solr Performance Monitoring -- http://sematext.com/spm >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Shawn Heisey <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 7/10/2013 2:46 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: >>>> >>>> I've been waving my hands for a while with "QTime is just the query >>>> time, it doesn't count network latency, assembling the response blah >>>> blah blah". >>>> >>>> It seems like we could at least provide the time it takes to write out >>>> the docs that would include decompression time, disk latency, all that >>>> stuff. Still wouldn't deal with network latency, but it'd be progress. >>> >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>> Does this seem do-able? What about valuable? I'm assuming that just >>>> _adding_ a section wouldn't break back-compat. What do people think? >>>> Should I raise a JIRA? >>> >>> >>> +1 on raising a JIRA. Here's my radical notion: >>> >>> IMHO we should add all available timing information up and display that as >>> QTime. Having that QTime further broken down into additional information >>> would be very good. Any simple calculations (which shouldn't really slow >>> down a request) should be included by default, and any calculations that do >>> slow things down could be part of debugQuery output. >>> >>> My preference would be to make these changes in branch_4x, but if we do >>> that, we'll suddenly be dealing with people who think that a minor version >>> upgrade has incredibly worse performance just based on QTime numbers, even >>> though nothing has really changed. >>> >>> If we just make the additional information available in 4.x and then update >>> QTime to include everything in 5.0, that seems like a reasonable path. It's >>> easier to manage expectations on a major version bump. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shawn >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- Walter Underwood [email protected]
