Thanks.

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:45:29 PM UTC-8, Martijn v Groningen wrote:
>
> Ok, I thought may be an old jvm version was causing this, but this one is 
> pretty recent.
>
> I took a better look at indexing percolator queries and there is indeed a 
> substantial difference in execution time comparing to indexing a regular 
> document. When I disabled the size calculation (in the code) for percolator 
> queries the execution between indexing a regular document and an percolator 
> document is more or less the same.
>
> I opened an issue for this: 
> https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch/issues/5339
>
>
>
> On 4 March 2014 16:52, James Bathgate <[email protected]<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> Martijn,
>>
>> I'm using Oracle Java 7u45
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 1:05:13 AM UTC-8, Martijn v Groningen wrote:
>>
>>> I see that you a lot of time is spend on just measuring how memory the 
>>> query takes in memory and not parsing the query. I think this slowness 
>>> might be jvm version dependent, what jvm version are you using?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 March 2014 01:33, James Bathgate <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Martijn,
>>>>
>>>> 1. Not running low at all.
>>>> 2. A regular document takes ~75ms.
>>>> 3. https://gist.github.com/julesbravo/9337810
>>>>
>>>> It looks like it's definitely CPU bound.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, March 3, 2014 3:40:05 PM UTC-8, Martijn v Groningen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On top of just indexing a document, the top level 'query' field part 
>>>>> gets parsed into a internal Lucene query. However I don't see why this 
>>>>> should take a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some questions:
>>>>> Are you running low on jvm memory?
>>>>> How long does it take to index a regular document?
>>>>> Can you run the hot threads api while indexing a percolator document?
>>>>>
>>>>> Martijn 
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4 March 2014 00:25, James Bathgate <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What are the likely bottlenecks on indexing percolators? This is on a 
>>>>>> Vagrant virtual machine with 2 GBs of RAM with 1GB for ES. I'm wondering 
>>>>>> if 
>>>>>> this won't be a problem on an EC2 instance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, March 3, 2014 2:14:34 PM UTC-8, James Bathgate wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think so. This is on my local dev with nothing else running 
>>>>>>> on the index.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 3, 2014 2:00:53 PM UTC-8, Binh Ly wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmmm not sure, I just tried this on ES 1.0.1 and Oracle Java 
>>>>>>>> 1.7_u51 and here are my results:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Insert Percolator:
>>>>>>>> {"_index":"merchandising","_type":".percolator","_id":"1","_
>>>>>>>> version":1,"created":true}
>>>>>>>> real    0m0.103s
>>>>>>>> user    0m0.015s
>>>>>>>> sys     0m0.000s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it possible that your index was just busy?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  -- 
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>>>> Groups "elasticsearch" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
>>>>>> send an email to [email protected].
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>>>>> msgid/elasticsearch/5dc16213-ba8e-4d68-9518-0882bd26e294%40goo
>>>>>> glegroups.com.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Met vriendelijke groet,
>>>>>
>>>>> Martijn van Groningen 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Met vriendelijke groet,
>>>
>>> Martijn van Groningen 
>>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Martijn van Groningen 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"elasticsearch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/5fe29c8e-72e6-440a-b292-f1fbdba2df03%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to