Re: Solr Pagination
Don't spend your time reading this, I've just found an answer in the documentation: > *One way to ensure that a document will never be returned more then once, > is to use the uniqueKey field as the primary (and therefore: only > significant) sort criterion. **In this situation, you will be guaranteed > that each document is only returned once, no matter how it may be be > modified during the use of the cursor.* https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Pagination+of+Results On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Vincenzo D'Amore <v.dam...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a collection that is frequently updated, is it possible that a Solr > Cloud query returns duplicate documents while paginating? > > Just to be clear, there is a collection with about 3M of documents and a > Solr query selects just 500K documents sorted by Id, which are returned > simply paginating the results with the parameters start, rows and sort. > > The query is like this one: > > http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=idCat:1; > start=0=2=id asc > > To be honest, I've not verified personally, but the consumer of this query > claims that after few trials, duplicate documents where returned. > > Given that the collection is frequently updated, I suppose that adding a > large bunch of new documents during the pagination can affect the index and > change the order of results. > > In other words, if I have 500K documents returned by 25 queries (20K > documents for each request) and during the iteration, 1000 new documents > are inserted. > Given that I have a query sorted by Id, I think it is possibile that the > documents returned reflect the new order, so it is possible that a document > returned in a previous query now is also present in the current results. > > Again, I'm trying to solve this problem using the deep paging. > > I have read that "unlike basic pagination, Cursor pagination does not rely > on using an absolute "offset" into the completed sorted list of matching > documents. Instead, the cursorMark specified in a request encapsulates > information about the relative position of the last document returned, > based on the absolute sort values of that document. This means that the > impact of index modifications is much smaller when using a cursor compared > to basic pagination." > > What do you think about, am I right? The deep paging can help to solve > this problem? > > Best regards and thanks for your time, > Vincenzo > >
Solr Pagination
Hi all, I have a collection that is frequently updated, is it possible that a Solr Cloud query returns duplicate documents while paginating? Just to be clear, there is a collection with about 3M of documents and a Solr query selects just 500K documents sorted by Id, which are returned simply paginating the results with the parameters start, rows and sort. The query is like this one: http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=idCat:1=0=2=id asc To be honest, I've not verified personally, but the consumer of this query claims that after few trials, duplicate documents where returned. Given that the collection is frequently updated, I suppose that adding a large bunch of new documents during the pagination can affect the index and change the order of results. In other words, if I have 500K documents returned by 25 queries (20K documents for each request) and during the iteration, 1000 new documents are inserted. Given that I have a query sorted by Id, I think it is possibile that the documents returned reflect the new order, so it is possible that a document returned in a previous query now is also present in the current results. Again, I'm trying to solve this problem using the deep paging. I have read that "unlike basic pagination, Cursor pagination does not rely on using an absolute "offset" into the completed sorted list of matching documents. Instead, the cursorMark specified in a request encapsulates information about the relative position of the last document returned, based on the absolute sort values of that document. This means that the impact of index modifications is much smaller when using a cursor compared to basic pagination." What do you think about, am I right? The deep paging can help to solve this problem? Best regards and thanks for your time, Vincenzo
Re: Duplicate docs in Solr pagination
start is an absolute row start parameter, not a page number. So, you need to calculate the next page start yourself. Regards, Alex. http://www.solr-start.com/ - Resources for Solr users, new and experienced On 11 December 2016 at 22:52, atawfik <contact.txl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am experiencing a weird behavior with Solr. Pagination gives duplicates > results. > > Requesting > *http://localhost:8983/solr/tweets/select?q=text:test=0=csv=id,timestamp=doc_type:tweet* > gives me: > > id,timestamp > 801943081268428800,2016-11-25T00:18:24.613Z > 802159834942541824,2016-11-25T14:39:42.716Z > 801932818301521920,2016-11-24T23:37:37.731Z > 801945904328544256,2016-11-25T00:29:37.683Z > 801947217439272960,2016-11-25T00:34:50.753Z > 801944318885982208,2016-11-25T00:23:19.684Z > 801944683282894848,2016-11-25T00:24:46.563Z > 801945048527097856,2016-11-25T00:26:13.644Z > *802339145678848000*,2016-11-26T02:32:13.727Z > 802340356973010944,2016-11-26T02:37:02.522Z > > However, requesting > *http://localhost:8983/solr/tweets/select?q=text:test=1=csv=id,timestamp=doc_type:tweet* > gives me: > id,timestamp > 802159834942541824,2016-11-25T14:39:42.716Z > 801932818301521920,2016-11-24T23:37:37.731Z > 801945904328544256,2016-11-25T00:29:37.683Z > 801947217439272960,2016-11-25T00:34:50.753Z > 801944318885982208,2016-11-25T00:23:19.684Z > 801944683282894848,2016-11-25T00:24:46.563Z > 801945048527097856,2016-11-25T00:26:13.644Z > *802339145678848000*,2016-11-26T02:32:13.727Z > 802340356973010944,2016-11-26T02:37:02.522Z > 802345158679363584,2016-11-26T02:56:07.338Z > > > The index is already optimized, I am not adding any documents when I issue > the queries and I am using Solr 6.2.1. > > Regards > Ameer > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Duplicate-docs-in-Solr-pagination-tp4309292.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Duplicate docs in Solr pagination
Hi all, I am experiencing a weird behavior with Solr. Pagination gives duplicates results. Requesting *http://localhost:8983/solr/tweets/select?q=text:test=0=csv=id,timestamp=doc_type:tweet* gives me: id,timestamp 801943081268428800,2016-11-25T00:18:24.613Z 802159834942541824,2016-11-25T14:39:42.716Z 801932818301521920,2016-11-24T23:37:37.731Z 801945904328544256,2016-11-25T00:29:37.683Z 801947217439272960,2016-11-25T00:34:50.753Z 801944318885982208,2016-11-25T00:23:19.684Z 801944683282894848,2016-11-25T00:24:46.563Z 801945048527097856,2016-11-25T00:26:13.644Z *802339145678848000*,2016-11-26T02:32:13.727Z 802340356973010944,2016-11-26T02:37:02.522Z However, requesting *http://localhost:8983/solr/tweets/select?q=text:test=1=csv=id,timestamp=doc_type:tweet* gives me: id,timestamp 802159834942541824,2016-11-25T14:39:42.716Z 801932818301521920,2016-11-24T23:37:37.731Z 801945904328544256,2016-11-25T00:29:37.683Z 801947217439272960,2016-11-25T00:34:50.753Z 801944318885982208,2016-11-25T00:23:19.684Z 801944683282894848,2016-11-25T00:24:46.563Z 801945048527097856,2016-11-25T00:26:13.644Z *802339145678848000*,2016-11-26T02:32:13.727Z 802340356973010944,2016-11-26T02:37:02.522Z 802345158679363584,2016-11-26T02:56:07.338Z The index is already optimized, I am not adding any documents when I issue the queries and I am using Solr 6.2.1. Regards Ameer -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Duplicate-docs-in-Solr-pagination-tp4309292.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr Pagination
I have already indexed all the documents in Solr and not indexing anymore. So the problem I am running in is after all the documents are indexed. I am using Solr cloud with two shards and two replicas for each shard but on the same machine. Is there anywhere I can look at the relation between index size and machine specs and its effect on Solr query performance? Regards, Salman On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Upayavirawrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 05:43 PM, Salman Ansari wrote: > > Thanks guys for your responses. > > > > That's a very very large cache size. It is likely to use a VERY large > > amount of heap, and autowarming up to 4096 entries at commit time might > > take many *minutes*. Each filterCache entry is maxDoc/8 bytes. On an > > index core with 70 million documents, each filterCache entry is at least > > 8.75 million bytes. Multiply that by 16384, and a completely full cache > > would need about 140GB of heap memory. 4096 entries will require 35GB. > > I don't think this cache is actually storing that many entries, or you > > would most certainly be running into OutOfMemoryError exceptions. > > > > True, however, I have tried with the default filtercache at the beginning > > but the problem was still there. So, I don't think that is how I should > > increase the performance of my Solr. Moreover, as you mentioned, when I > > change the configuration, I should be running out of memory but that did > > not happen. Do you think my Solr has not taken the latest configs? I have > > restarted the Solr btw. > > > > Lately I have been trying different ways to improve this and I have > > created > > a brand new index on the same machine using 2 shards and it had few > > entries > > (about 5) and the performance was booming, I got the results back in 42 > > ms > > sometimes. What concerns me is that may be I am loading too much into one > > index so that is why this is killing the performance. Is there a > > recommended index size/document number and size that I should be looking > > at > > to tune this? Any other ideas other than increasing the memory size as I > > have already tried this? > > The optimal index size is down to the size of segments on disk. New > segments are created when hard commits occur, and existing on-disk > segments may get merged in the background when the segment count gets > too high. Now, if those on-disk segments get too large, copying them > around at merge time can get prohibitive, especially if your index is > changing frequently. > > Splitting such an index into shards is one approach to dealing with this > issue. > > Upayavira >
Re: Solr Pagination
In a word, "no". I once doubled the JVM requirements by changing just the query. You have to prototype. Here's a blog on the subject: https://lucidworks.com/blog/2012/07/23/sizing-hardware-in-the-abstract-why-we-dont-have-a-definitive-answer/ On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Salman Ansariwrote: > I have already indexed all the documents in Solr and not indexing anymore. > So the problem I am running in is after all the documents are indexed. I am > using Solr cloud with two shards and two replicas for each shard but on the > same machine. Is there anywhere I can look at the relation between index > size and machine specs and its effect on Solr query performance? > > Regards, > Salman > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Upayavira wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 05:43 PM, Salman Ansari wrote: >> > Thanks guys for your responses. >> > >> > That's a very very large cache size. It is likely to use a VERY large >> > amount of heap, and autowarming up to 4096 entries at commit time might >> > take many *minutes*. Each filterCache entry is maxDoc/8 bytes. On an >> > index core with 70 million documents, each filterCache entry is at least >> > 8.75 million bytes. Multiply that by 16384, and a completely full cache >> > would need about 140GB of heap memory. 4096 entries will require 35GB. >> > I don't think this cache is actually storing that many entries, or you >> > would most certainly be running into OutOfMemoryError exceptions. >> > >> > True, however, I have tried with the default filtercache at the beginning >> > but the problem was still there. So, I don't think that is how I should >> > increase the performance of my Solr. Moreover, as you mentioned, when I >> > change the configuration, I should be running out of memory but that did >> > not happen. Do you think my Solr has not taken the latest configs? I have >> > restarted the Solr btw. >> > >> > Lately I have been trying different ways to improve this and I have >> > created >> > a brand new index on the same machine using 2 shards and it had few >> > entries >> > (about 5) and the performance was booming, I got the results back in 42 >> > ms >> > sometimes. What concerns me is that may be I am loading too much into one >> > index so that is why this is killing the performance. Is there a >> > recommended index size/document number and size that I should be looking >> > at >> > to tune this? Any other ideas other than increasing the memory size as I >> > have already tried this? >> >> The optimal index size is down to the size of segments on disk. New >> segments are created when hard commits occur, and existing on-disk >> segments may get merged in the background when the segment count gets >> too high. Now, if those on-disk segments get too large, copying them >> around at merge time can get prohibitive, especially if your index is >> changing frequently. >> >> Splitting such an index into shards is one approach to dealing with this >> issue. >> >> Upayavira >>
Re: Solr Pagination
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015, at 05:43 PM, Salman Ansari wrote: > Thanks guys for your responses. > > That's a very very large cache size. It is likely to use a VERY large > amount of heap, and autowarming up to 4096 entries at commit time might > take many *minutes*. Each filterCache entry is maxDoc/8 bytes. On an > index core with 70 million documents, each filterCache entry is at least > 8.75 million bytes. Multiply that by 16384, and a completely full cache > would need about 140GB of heap memory. 4096 entries will require 35GB. > I don't think this cache is actually storing that many entries, or you > would most certainly be running into OutOfMemoryError exceptions. > > True, however, I have tried with the default filtercache at the beginning > but the problem was still there. So, I don't think that is how I should > increase the performance of my Solr. Moreover, as you mentioned, when I > change the configuration, I should be running out of memory but that did > not happen. Do you think my Solr has not taken the latest configs? I have > restarted the Solr btw. > > Lately I have been trying different ways to improve this and I have > created > a brand new index on the same machine using 2 shards and it had few > entries > (about 5) and the performance was booming, I got the results back in 42 > ms > sometimes. What concerns me is that may be I am loading too much into one > index so that is why this is killing the performance. Is there a > recommended index size/document number and size that I should be looking > at > to tune this? Any other ideas other than increasing the memory size as I > have already tried this? The optimal index size is down to the size of segments on disk. New segments are created when hard commits occur, and existing on-disk segments may get merged in the background when the segment count gets too high. Now, if those on-disk segments get too large, copying them around at merge time can get prohibitive, especially if your index is changing frequently. Splitting such an index into shards is one approach to dealing with this issue. Upayavira
Re: Solr Pagination
Thanks guys for your responses. That's a very very large cache size. It is likely to use a VERY large amount of heap, and autowarming up to 4096 entries at commit time might take many *minutes*. Each filterCache entry is maxDoc/8 bytes. On an index core with 70 million documents, each filterCache entry is at least 8.75 million bytes. Multiply that by 16384, and a completely full cache would need about 140GB of heap memory. 4096 entries will require 35GB. I don't think this cache is actually storing that many entries, or you would most certainly be running into OutOfMemoryError exceptions. True, however, I have tried with the default filtercache at the beginning but the problem was still there. So, I don't think that is how I should increase the performance of my Solr. Moreover, as you mentioned, when I change the configuration, I should be running out of memory but that did not happen. Do you think my Solr has not taken the latest configs? I have restarted the Solr btw. Lately I have been trying different ways to improve this and I have created a brand new index on the same machine using 2 shards and it had few entries (about 5) and the performance was booming, I got the results back in 42 ms sometimes. What concerns me is that may be I am loading too much into one index so that is why this is killing the performance. Is there a recommended index size/document number and size that I should be looking at to tune this? Any other ideas other than increasing the memory size as I have already tried this? Regards, Salman On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Toke Eskildsenwrote: > On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 10:17 +0200, Jan Høydahl wrote: > > I have not benchmarked various number of segments at different sizes > > on different HW etc, so my hunch could very well be wrong for Salman’s > case. > > I don’t know how frequent updates there is to his data either. > > > > Have you done #segments benchmarking for your huge datasets? > > Only informally. However, the guys at UKWA run a similar scale index and > have done multiple segment-count-oriented tests. They have not published > a report, but there are measurements & graphs at > https://github.com/ukwa/shine/tree/master/python/test-logs > > - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark > > >
Re: Solr Pagination
On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 10:17 +0200, Jan Høydahl wrote: > I have not benchmarked various number of segments at different sizes > on different HW etc, so my hunch could very well be wrong for Salman’s case. > I don’t know how frequent updates there is to his data either. > > Have you done #segments benchmarking for your huge datasets? Only informally. However, the guys at UKWA run a similar scale index and have done multiple segment-count-oriented tests. They have not published a report, but there are measurements & graphs at https://github.com/ukwa/shine/tree/master/python/test-logs - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
Re: Solr Pagination
I have not benchmarked various number of segments at different sizes on different HW etc, so my hunch could very well be wrong for Salman’s case. I don’t know how frequent updates there is to his data either. Have you done #segments benchmarking for your huge datasets? -- Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > 12. okt. 2015 kl. 12.56 skrev Toke Eskildsen: > > On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 10:05 +0200, Jan Høydahl wrote: >> What you do when you call optimize is to force Lucene to merge all >> those 35M docs into ONE SINGLE index segment. You get better HW >> utilization if you let Lucene/Solr automatically handle merging, >> meaning you’ll have around 10 smaller segments that are faster to >> search across than one huge segment. > > As individual Lucene/Solr shard searches are very much single threaded, > the single segment version should be faster. Have you observed > otherwise? > > > Optimization is a fine feature if ones workflow is batch oriented with > sufficiently long pauses between index updates. Nightly index updates > with few active users at that time could be an example. > > - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark > >
Re: Solr Pagination
Salman, You say that you optimized your index from Admin. You should not do that, however strange it sounds. 70M docs on 2 shards means 35M docs per shard. What you do when you call optimize is to force Lucene to merge all those 35M docs into ONE SINGLE index segment. You get better HW utilization if you let Lucene/Solr automatically handle merging, meaning you’ll have around 10 smaller segments that are faster to search across than one huge segment. Your cache settings are way too high. Remember “size” here is number of *entries* not number of bytes. Start with, say, 100 - and then let the system run for a while with realistic query load, and then determine based on the cache statistics whether you have a high hit rate (the cache is useful) and a high eviction rate (could indicate that you would benefit from an increase). I would not concern myself with high paging offsets unless there is something very special about your usecase which justifies this as a usecase to focus much energy on. People just don’t page beyond page 10 :) and if they do you should focus on improving the relevancy first - unless you got a very special use case... -- Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > 11. okt. 2015 kl. 06.54 skrev Shawn Heisey: > > On 10/10/2015 2:55 AM, Salman Ansari wrote: >> Thanks Shawn for your response. Based on that >> 1) Can you please direct me where I can get more information about cold >> shard vs hot shard? > > I don't know of any information out there about hot/cold shards. I can > describe it, though: > > A split point is determined. Everything older than the split point gets > divided by some method (usually hashing) between multiple cold shards. > Everything newer than the split point goes into the hot shard. For my > index, there is only one hot shard, but it is possible to have multiple > hot shards. > > On some interval (nightly in my index), the split point is adjusted and > documents are moved from the hot shard to the cold shards according to > that split point. The hot shard is typically a lot smaller than the > cold shards, which helps increase indexing speed for new documents. > > I am not using SolrCloud. I manage all my own sharding. There is no > capability included in SolrCloud that can do hot/cold sharding. > >> 2) That 10GB number assumes there's no other software on the machine, like >> a database server or a webserver. >> Yes the machine is dedicated for Solr >> >> 3) How much index data is on the machine? >> I have 3 collections 2 for testing (so the aggregate of both of them does >> not exceed 1M document) and the main collection that I am querying now >> which contains around 69M. I have distributed all my collections into 2 >> shards each with 2 replicas. The consumption on the hard disk is about 40GB. > > That sounds like a recipe for a performance problem, although I am not > certain why the problem persisted after increasing the memory. Perhaps > it has something to do with the filterCache, which I will get to further > down. > >> 4) A memory size of 14GB would be unusual for a physical machine, and makes >> me >> wonder if you're using virtual machines >> Yes I am using virtual machine as using a bare metal will be difficult in >> my case as all of our data center is on the cloud. I can increase its >> capacity though. While testing some edge cases on Solr, I realized on Solr >> admin that the memory sometimes reaches to its limit (14GB RAM, and 4GB JVM) > > This is how operating systems and Java are designed to work. When > things are running well, all of physical memory might be allocated, and > the heap will become full on a semi-regular basis. If it *stays* full, > that usually means it needs to be larger. The admin UI is a poor tool > for watching JVM memory usage. > >> 5) Just to confirm, I have combined the lessons from >> >> http://www.slideshare.net/lucidworks/high-performance-solr-and-jvm-tuning-strategies-used-for-map-quests-search-ahead-darren-spehr >> AND >> https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems#OS_Disk_Cache >> >> to come up with the following settings >> >> FilterCache >> >>> size="16384" >> initialSize="4096" >> autowarmCount="4096"/> > > That's a very very large cache size. It is likely to use a VERY large > amount of heap, and autowarming up to 4096 entries at commit time might > take many *minutes*. Each filterCache entry is maxDoc/8 bytes. On an > index core with 70 million documents, each filterCache entry is at least > 8.75 million bytes. Multiply that by 16384, and a completely full cache > would need about 140GB of heap memory. 4096 entries will require 35GB. > I don't think this cache is actually storing that many entries, or you > would most certainly be running into OutOfMemoryError exceptions. > >>> size="16384" >> initialSize="16384" >>
Re: Solr Pagination
On Mon, 2015-10-12 at 10:05 +0200, Jan Høydahl wrote: > What you do when you call optimize is to force Lucene to merge all > those 35M docs into ONE SINGLE index segment. You get better HW > utilization if you let Lucene/Solr automatically handle merging, > meaning you’ll have around 10 smaller segments that are faster to > search across than one huge segment. As individual Lucene/Solr shard searches are very much single threaded, the single segment version should be faster. Have you observed otherwise? Optimization is a fine feature if ones workflow is batch oriented with sufficiently long pauses between index updates. Nightly index updates with few active users at that time could be an example. - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
Re: Solr Pagination
Regarding Solr performance issue I was facing, I upgraded my Solr machine to have 8 cores 56 GB RAM 8 GB JVM However, unfortunately, I am still getting delays. I have run * the query "Football" with start=0 and rows=10 and it took around 7.329 seconds * the query "Football" with start=1000 and rows=10 and it took around 21.994 seconds I was looking at Solr admin that the RAM and JVM are not being utilized to the maximum, even not half or 1/4th. How do I push data to the cache once Solr starts? and is pushing data to cache the right strategy to solve the issue? Appreciate your comments. Regards, Salman On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Salman Ansariwrote: > Thanks Shawn for your response. Based on that > 1) Can you please direct me where I can get more information about cold > shard vs hot shard? > > 2) That 10GB number assumes there's no other software on the machine, > like a database server or a webserver. > Yes the machine is dedicated for Solr > > 3) How much index data is on the machine? > I have 3 collections 2 for testing (so the aggregate of both of them does > not exceed 1M document) and the main collection that I am querying now > which contains around 69M. I have distributed all my collections into 2 > shards each with 2 replicas. The consumption on the hard disk is about 40GB. > > 4) A memory size of 14GB would be unusual for a physical machine, and > makes me wonder if you're using virtual machines > Yes I am using virtual machine as using a bare metal will be difficult in > my case as all of our data center is on the cloud. I can increase its > capacity though. While testing some edge cases on Solr, I realized on Solr > admin that the memory sometimes reaches to its limit (14GB RAM, and 4GB JVM) > > 5) Just to confirm, I have combined the lessons from > > http://www.slideshare.net/lucidworks/high-performance-solr-and-jvm-tuning-strategies-used-for-map-quests-search-ahead-darren-spehr > AND > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems#OS_Disk_Cache > > to come up with the following settings > > FilterCache > > size="16384" > initialSize="4096" > autowarmCount="4096"/> > > DocummentCahce > > size="16384" >initialSize="16384" >autowarmCount="0"/> > > NewSearcher and FirsSearcher > > > >*score desc id > desc > > > > > * score desc id desc > > > * > category > > > > Will this be using more cache in Solr and prepoupulate it? > > Regards, > Salman > > > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > >> On 10/9/2015 1:39 PM, Salman Ansari wrote: >> >> > INFO - 2015-10-09 18:46:17.953; [c:sabr102 s:shard1 r:core_node2 >> > x:sabr102_shard1_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; >> > [sabr102_shard1_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select >> > params={start=0=(content_text:Football)=10} hits=24408 status=0 >> > QTime=3391 >> >> Over 3 seconds for a query like this definitely sounds like there's a >> problem. >> >> > INFO - 2015-10-09 18:47:04.727; [c:sabr102 s:shard1 r:core_node2 >> > x:sabr102_shard1_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; >> > [sabr102_shard1_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select >> > params={start=1000=(content_text:Football)=10} hits=24408 >> status=0 >> > QTime=21569 >> >> Adding a start value of 1000 increases QTime by a factor of more than >> 6? Even more evidence of a performance problem. >> >> For comparison purposes, I did a couple of simple queries on a large >> index of mine. Here are the response headers showing the QTime value >> and all the parameters (except my shard URLs) for each query: >> >> "responseHeader": { >> "status": 0, >> "QTime": 1253, >> "params": { >> "df": "catchall", >> "spellcheck.maxCollationEvaluations": "2", >> "spellcheck.dictionary": "default", >> "echoParams": "all", >> "spellcheck.maxCollations": "5", >> "q.op": "AND", >> "shards.info": "true", >> "spellcheck.maxCollationTries": "2", >> "rows": "70", >> "spellcheck.extendedResults": "false", >> "shards": "REDACTED SEVEN SHARD URLS", >> "shards.tolerant": "true", >> "spellcheck.onlyMorePopular": "false", >> "facet.method": "enum", >> "spellcheck.count": "9", >> "q": "catchall:carriage", >> "indent": "true", >> "wt": "json", >> "_": "120900498" >> } >> >> >> "responseHeader": { >> "status": 0, >> "QTime": 176, >> "params": { >> "df": "catchall", >> "spellcheck.maxCollationEvaluations": "2", >> "spellcheck.dictionary": "default", >> "echoParams": "all", >> "spellcheck.maxCollations": "5", >> "q.op": "AND", >> "shards.info": "true", >> "spellcheck.maxCollationTries": "2", >> "rows": "70", >>
Re: Solr Pagination
On 10/10/2015 2:55 AM, Salman Ansari wrote: > Thanks Shawn for your response. Based on that > 1) Can you please direct me where I can get more information about cold > shard vs hot shard? I don't know of any information out there about hot/cold shards. I can describe it, though: A split point is determined. Everything older than the split point gets divided by some method (usually hashing) between multiple cold shards. Everything newer than the split point goes into the hot shard. For my index, there is only one hot shard, but it is possible to have multiple hot shards. On some interval (nightly in my index), the split point is adjusted and documents are moved from the hot shard to the cold shards according to that split point. The hot shard is typically a lot smaller than the cold shards, which helps increase indexing speed for new documents. I am not using SolrCloud. I manage all my own sharding. There is no capability included in SolrCloud that can do hot/cold sharding. > 2) That 10GB number assumes there's no other software on the machine, like > a database server or a webserver. > Yes the machine is dedicated for Solr > > 3) How much index data is on the machine? > I have 3 collections 2 for testing (so the aggregate of both of them does > not exceed 1M document) and the main collection that I am querying now > which contains around 69M. I have distributed all my collections into 2 > shards each with 2 replicas. The consumption on the hard disk is about 40GB. That sounds like a recipe for a performance problem, although I am not certain why the problem persisted after increasing the memory. Perhaps it has something to do with the filterCache, which I will get to further down. > 4) A memory size of 14GB would be unusual for a physical machine, and makes me > wonder if you're using virtual machines > Yes I am using virtual machine as using a bare metal will be difficult in > my case as all of our data center is on the cloud. I can increase its > capacity though. While testing some edge cases on Solr, I realized on Solr > admin that the memory sometimes reaches to its limit (14GB RAM, and 4GB JVM) This is how operating systems and Java are designed to work. When things are running well, all of physical memory might be allocated, and the heap will become full on a semi-regular basis. If it *stays* full, that usually means it needs to be larger. The admin UI is a poor tool for watching JVM memory usage. > 5) Just to confirm, I have combined the lessons from > > http://www.slideshare.net/lucidworks/high-performance-solr-and-jvm-tuning-strategies-used-for-map-quests-search-ahead-darren-spehr > AND > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems#OS_Disk_Cache > > to come up with the following settings > > FilterCache > > size="16384" > initialSize="4096" > autowarmCount="4096"/> That's a very very large cache size. It is likely to use a VERY large amount of heap, and autowarming up to 4096 entries at commit time might take many *minutes*. Each filterCache entry is maxDoc/8 bytes. On an index core with 70 million documents, each filterCache entry is at least 8.75 million bytes. Multiply that by 16384, and a completely full cache would need about 140GB of heap memory. 4096 entries will require 35GB. I don't think this cache is actually storing that many entries, or you would most certainly be running into OutOfMemoryError exceptions. > size="16384" >initialSize="16384" >autowarmCount="0"/> > > NewSearcher and FirsSearcher > > > >*score desc id > desc > > > > > * score desc id desc > > * > category > > > > Will this be using more cache in Solr and prepoupulate it? The newSearcher entry will result in one entry in the queryResultCache, and an unknown number of entries in the documentCache -- that depends on the "rows" parameter on the /select handler (defaults to 10) and the queryResultMaxDocsCached parameter. The firstSearcher entry does two queries, but because the "q" parameter is identical on them, it will only result in one entry in the queryResultCache. One of them has facet.field, but you did not include facet=true, so the facet query will not actually be run. Without the facet query, the filterCache will not be populated. I think the design intent for newSearcher and firstSearcher is to load critical index data into the OS disk cache. It's not so much about warming the Solr caches as it is about priming the system as a whole. Note that the wildcard query you are running (q=*) is relatively slow, but is an excellent choice for a warming query, because it actually reads every single term from the default field. Because of how slow this query can run, setting useColdSearcher to true is recommended. Thanks, Shawn
Re: Solr Pagination
Thanks Shawn for your response. Based on that 1) Can you please direct me where I can get more information about cold shard vs hot shard? 2) That 10GB number assumes there's no other software on the machine, like a database server or a webserver. Yes the machine is dedicated for Solr 3) How much index data is on the machine? I have 3 collections 2 for testing (so the aggregate of both of them does not exceed 1M document) and the main collection that I am querying now which contains around 69M. I have distributed all my collections into 2 shards each with 2 replicas. The consumption on the hard disk is about 40GB. 4) A memory size of 14GB would be unusual for a physical machine, and makes me wonder if you're using virtual machines Yes I am using virtual machine as using a bare metal will be difficult in my case as all of our data center is on the cloud. I can increase its capacity though. While testing some edge cases on Solr, I realized on Solr admin that the memory sometimes reaches to its limit (14GB RAM, and 4GB JVM) 5) Just to confirm, I have combined the lessons from http://www.slideshare.net/lucidworks/high-performance-solr-and-jvm-tuning-strategies-used-for-map-quests-search-ahead-darren-spehr AND https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems#OS_Disk_Cache to come up with the following settings FilterCache DocummentCahce NewSearcher and FirsSearcher *score desc id desc * score desc id desc * category Will this be using more cache in Solr and prepoupulate it? Regards, Salman On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Shawn Heiseywrote: > On 10/9/2015 1:39 PM, Salman Ansari wrote: > > > INFO - 2015-10-09 18:46:17.953; [c:sabr102 s:shard1 r:core_node2 > > x:sabr102_shard1_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; > > [sabr102_shard1_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select > > params={start=0=(content_text:Football)=10} hits=24408 status=0 > > QTime=3391 > > Over 3 seconds for a query like this definitely sounds like there's a > problem. > > > INFO - 2015-10-09 18:47:04.727; [c:sabr102 s:shard1 r:core_node2 > > x:sabr102_shard1_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; > > [sabr102_shard1_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select > > params={start=1000=(content_text:Football)=10} hits=24408 status=0 > > QTime=21569 > > Adding a start value of 1000 increases QTime by a factor of more than > 6? Even more evidence of a performance problem. > > For comparison purposes, I did a couple of simple queries on a large > index of mine. Here are the response headers showing the QTime value > and all the parameters (except my shard URLs) for each query: > > "responseHeader": { > "status": 0, > "QTime": 1253, > "params": { > "df": "catchall", > "spellcheck.maxCollationEvaluations": "2", > "spellcheck.dictionary": "default", > "echoParams": "all", > "spellcheck.maxCollations": "5", > "q.op": "AND", > "shards.info": "true", > "spellcheck.maxCollationTries": "2", > "rows": "70", > "spellcheck.extendedResults": "false", > "shards": "REDACTED SEVEN SHARD URLS", > "shards.tolerant": "true", > "spellcheck.onlyMorePopular": "false", > "facet.method": "enum", > "spellcheck.count": "9", > "q": "catchall:carriage", > "indent": "true", > "wt": "json", > "_": "120900498" > } > > > "responseHeader": { > "status": 0, > "QTime": 176, > "params": { > "df": "catchall", > "spellcheck.maxCollationEvaluations": "2", > "spellcheck.dictionary": "default", > "echoParams": "all", > "spellcheck.maxCollations": "5", > "q.op": "AND", > "shards.info": "true", > "spellcheck.maxCollationTries": "2", > "rows": "70", > "spellcheck.extendedResults": "false", > "shards": "REDACTED SEVEN SHARD URLS", > "shards.tolerant": "true", > "spellcheck.onlyMorePopular": "false", > "facet.method": "enum", > "spellcheck.count": "9", > "q": "catchall:wibble", > "indent": "true", > "wt": "json", > "_": "121001024" > } > > The first query had a numFound of 120906, the second a numFound of 32. > When I re-executed the first query (the one with a QTime of 1253) so it > would use the Solr caches, QTime was 17. > > This is an index that has six cold shards with 38.8 million documents > each and a hot shard with 1.5 million documents. Total document count > for the index is over 234 million documents, and the total size of the > index is about 272GB. Each copy of the index has its shards split > between two servers that each have 64GB of RAM, with an 8GB max Java > heap. I do not have enough memory to cache all the index contents in > RAM, but I can get a little less than half of it in the cache -- each > machine has about 56GB of cache available and contains
Re: Solr Pagination
On 10/9/2015 1:39 PM, Salman Ansari wrote: > INFO - 2015-10-09 18:46:17.953; [c:sabr102 s:shard1 r:core_node2 > x:sabr102_shard1_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; > [sabr102_shard1_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select > params={start=0=(content_text:Football)=10} hits=24408 status=0 > QTime=3391 Over 3 seconds for a query like this definitely sounds like there's a problem. > INFO - 2015-10-09 18:47:04.727; [c:sabr102 s:shard1 r:core_node2 > x:sabr102_shard1_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; > [sabr102_shard1_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select > params={start=1000=(content_text:Football)=10} hits=24408 status=0 > QTime=21569 Adding a start value of 1000 increases QTime by a factor of more than 6? Even more evidence of a performance problem. For comparison purposes, I did a couple of simple queries on a large index of mine. Here are the response headers showing the QTime value and all the parameters (except my shard URLs) for each query: "responseHeader": { "status": 0, "QTime": 1253, "params": { "df": "catchall", "spellcheck.maxCollationEvaluations": "2", "spellcheck.dictionary": "default", "echoParams": "all", "spellcheck.maxCollations": "5", "q.op": "AND", "shards.info": "true", "spellcheck.maxCollationTries": "2", "rows": "70", "spellcheck.extendedResults": "false", "shards": "REDACTED SEVEN SHARD URLS", "shards.tolerant": "true", "spellcheck.onlyMorePopular": "false", "facet.method": "enum", "spellcheck.count": "9", "q": "catchall:carriage", "indent": "true", "wt": "json", "_": "120900498" } "responseHeader": { "status": 0, "QTime": 176, "params": { "df": "catchall", "spellcheck.maxCollationEvaluations": "2", "spellcheck.dictionary": "default", "echoParams": "all", "spellcheck.maxCollations": "5", "q.op": "AND", "shards.info": "true", "spellcheck.maxCollationTries": "2", "rows": "70", "spellcheck.extendedResults": "false", "shards": "REDACTED SEVEN SHARD URLS", "shards.tolerant": "true", "spellcheck.onlyMorePopular": "false", "facet.method": "enum", "spellcheck.count": "9", "q": "catchall:wibble", "indent": "true", "wt": "json", "_": "121001024" } The first query had a numFound of 120906, the second a numFound of 32. When I re-executed the first query (the one with a QTime of 1253) so it would use the Solr caches, QTime was 17. This is an index that has six cold shards with 38.8 million documents each and a hot shard with 1.5 million documents. Total document count for the index is over 234 million documents, and the total size of the index is about 272GB. Each copy of the index has its shards split between two servers that each have 64GB of RAM, with an 8GB max Java heap. I do not have enough memory to cache all the index contents in RAM, but I can get a little less than half of it in the cache -- each machine has about 56GB of cache available and contains around 135GB of index data. The index data is stored on a RAID10 array with six SATA disks, so it's fairly fast, but nowhere near as fast as SSD. You've already mentioned the SolrPerformanceProblems wiki page that I wrote, which is where I would normally send you for more information. You said that your machine has 14GB of RAM and 4GB is allocated to Solr, leaving about 10GB for caching. That 10GB number assumes there's no other software on the machine, like a database server or a webserver. How much index data is on the machine? You need to count all the Solr cores. If the "10GB for caching" figure is accurate, then more than about 20GB of index data means you might need more memory. If it's more than about 40GB of index data, you definitely need more memory. A memory size of 14GB would be unusual for a physical machine, and makes me wonder if you're using virtual machines. Bare metal is always going to offer better performance than a VM. Another potential problem with VMs is that the host system might have its memory oversubscribed -- the total amount of memory in the host machine might be less than the total amount of memory allocated to all the running virtual machines. Solr performance will be terrible if VM memory is oversubscribed. Thanks, Shawn
Re: Solr Pagination
> > What other mechanisms do you suggest I should use to handle this issue? >> > >> > While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the >> > difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K might >> > also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? >> > I can limit users not to go beyond 10K but still think at that level >> > cursors will be much faster than increasing the start variable as >> explained >> > here ( >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Pagination+of+Results >> > ), have you tried both ways on your collection and it was giving you >> > similar results? >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Salman Ansari <salman.rah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> [Pagination with cursors] >> >> >> >> > For example, what happens if the user navigates from page 1 to page 2, >> >> > does the front end need to store the next cursor at each query? >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >> > What about going to a previous page, do we need to store all cursors >> >> > that have been navigated up to now at the client side? >> >> >> >> Yes, if you want to provide that functionality. >> >> >> >> Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really >> deep >> >> and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what they >> >> need? >> >> >> >> While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the >> >> difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K might >> >> also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? >> >> >> >> - Toke Eskildsen >> >> >>
Re: Solr Pagination
Thanks Eric for your response. If you find pagination is not the main culprit, what other factors do you guys suggest I need to tweak to test that? As I mentioned, by navigating to 2 results using start and row I am getting time out from Solr.NET and I need a way to fix that. You suggested that 4GB JVM is not enough, I have seen MapQuest going with 10GB JVM as mentioned here http://www.slideshare.net/lucidworks/high-performance-solr-and-jvm-tuning-strategies-used-for-map-quests-search-ahead-darren-spehr and they were getting 140 ms response time for 10 Billion documents. Not sure how many shards they had though. With data of around 70M documents, what do you guys suggest as how many shards should I use and how much should I dedicate for RAM and JVM? Regards, Salman On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think paging is something of a red herring. You say: > > bq: but still I get delays of around 16 seconds and sometimes even more. > > Even for a start of 1,000, this is ridiculously long for Solr. All > you're really saving > here is keeping a record of the id and score for a list 1,000 cells > long (or even > 20,000 assuming 1,000 pages and 20 docs/page). that's somewhat wasteful, > but it's still hard to believe it's responsible for what you're seeing. > > Having 4G of RAM for 70M docs is very little memory, assuming this is on > a single shard. > > So my suspicion is that you have something fundamentally slow about > your system, the additional overhead shouldn't be as large as you're > reporting. > > And I'll second Toke's comment. It's very rare that users see anything > _useful_ by navigating that deep. Make them hit next next next and they'll > tire out way before that. > > Cursor mark's sweet spot is handling some kind of automated process that > goes through the whole result set. It'll work for what you're trying > to do though. > > Best, > Erick > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Salman Ansari <salman.rah...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really > deep > > and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what they > > need? > > > > The issue is that currently I have around 70M documents and some generic > > queries are resulting in lots of pages. Now if I try deep navigation (to > > page# 1000 for example), a lot of times the query takes so long that > > Solr.NET throws operation time out exception. The first page is > relatively > > faster to load but it does take around few seconds as well. After reading > > some documentation I realized that cursors could help and it does. I have > > tried to following the test better performance: > > > > 1) Used cursors instead of start and row > > 2) Increased the RAM on my Solr machine to 14GB > > 3) Increase the JVM on that machine to 4GB > > 4) Increased the filterChache > > 5) Increased the docCache > > 6) Run Optimize on the Solr Admin > > > > but still I get delays of around 16 seconds and sometimes even more. > > What other mechanisms do you suggest I should use to handle this issue? > > > > While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the > > difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K might > > also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? > > I can limit users not to go beyond 10K but still think at that level > > cursors will be much faster than increasing the start variable as > explained > > here ( > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Pagination+of+Results > > ), have you tried both ways on your collection and it was giving you > > similar results? > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> > > wrote: > > > >> Salman Ansari <salman.rah...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> [Pagination with cursors] > >> > >> > For example, what happens if the user navigates from page 1 to page 2, > >> > does the front end need to store the next cursor at each query? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> > What about going to a previous page, do we need to store all cursors > >> > that have been navigated up to now at the client side? > >> > >> Yes, if you want to provide that functionality. > >> > >> Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really > deep > >> and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what they > >> need? > >> > >> While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the > >> difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K might > >> also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? > >> > >> - Toke Eskildsen > >> >
Solr Pagination
Hi guys, I have been working with Solr and Solr.NET for some time for a big project that requires around 300M documents. Consequently, I faced an issue and I am highlighting it here in case you have any comments: As mentioned here ( https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Pagination+of+Results), cursors are introduced to solve the problem of pagination. However, I was not able to find an example to do proper handling of page navigation with multiple users. For example, what happens if the user navigates from page 1 to page 2, does the front end need to store the next cursor at each query? What about going to a previous page, do we need to store all cursors that have been navigated up to now at the client side? Any comments/sample on how proper pagination should be handled using cursors? Regards, Salman
Re: Solr Pagination
Salman Ansariwrote: [Pagination with cursors] > For example, what happens if the user navigates from page 1 to page 2, > does the front end need to store the next cursor at each query? Yes. > What about going to a previous page, do we need to store all cursors > that have been navigated up to now at the client side? Yes, if you want to provide that functionality. Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really deep and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what they need? While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K might also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? - Toke Eskildsen
Re: Solr Pagination
; > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I think paging is something of a red herring. You say: > >> > >> bq: but still I get delays of around 16 seconds and sometimes even more. > >> > >> Even for a start of 1,000, this is ridiculously long for Solr. All > >> you're really saving > >> here is keeping a record of the id and score for a list 1,000 cells > >> long (or even > >> 20,000 assuming 1,000 pages and 20 docs/page). that's somewhat wasteful, > >> but it's still hard to believe it's responsible for what you're seeing. > >> > >> Having 4G of RAM for 70M docs is very little memory, assuming this is on > >> a single shard. > >> > >> So my suspicion is that you have something fundamentally slow about > >> your system, the additional overhead shouldn't be as large as you're > >> reporting. > >> > >> And I'll second Toke's comment. It's very rare that users see anything > >> _useful_ by navigating that deep. Make them hit next next next and > they'll > >> tire out way before that. > >> > >> Cursor mark's sweet spot is handling some kind of automated process that > >> goes through the whole result set. It'll work for what you're trying > >> to do though. > >> > >> Best, > >> Erick > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Salman Ansari <salman.rah...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really > >> deep > >> > and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what > they > >> > need? > >> > > >> > The issue is that currently I have around 70M documents and some > generic > >> > queries are resulting in lots of pages. Now if I try deep navigation > (to > >> > page# 1000 for example), a lot of times the query takes so long that > >> > Solr.NET throws operation time out exception. The first page is > >> relatively > >> > faster to load but it does take around few seconds as well. After > reading > >> > some documentation I realized that cursors could help and it does. I > have > >> > tried to following the test better performance: > >> > > >> > 1) Used cursors instead of start and row > >> > 2) Increased the RAM on my Solr machine to 14GB > >> > 3) Increase the JVM on that machine to 4GB > >> > 4) Increased the filterChache > >> > 5) Increased the docCache > >> > 6) Run Optimize on the Solr Admin > >> > > >> > but still I get delays of around 16 seconds and sometimes even more. > >> > What other mechanisms do you suggest I should use to handle this > issue? > >> > > >> > While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the > >> > difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K > might > >> > also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? > >> > I can limit users not to go beyond 10K but still think at that level > >> > cursors will be much faster than increasing the start variable as > >> explained > >> > here ( > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Pagination+of+Results > >> > ), have you tried both ways on your collection and it was giving you > >> > similar results? > >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Toke Eskildsen < > t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Salman Ansari <salman.rah...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> [Pagination with cursors] > >> >> > >> >> > For example, what happens if the user navigates from page 1 to > page 2, > >> >> > does the front end need to store the next cursor at each query? > >> >> > >> >> Yes. > >> >> > >> >> > What about going to a previous page, do we need to store all > cursors > >> >> > that have been navigated up to now at the client side? > >> >> > >> >> Yes, if you want to provide that functionality. > >> >> > >> >> Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really > >> deep > >> >> and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what > they > >> >> need? > >> >> > >> >> While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the > >> >> difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K > might > >> >> also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? > >> >> > >> >> - Toke Eskildsen > >> >> > >> >
Re: Solr Pagination
Salman Ansariwrote: > As for the logs, I searched for "Salman" with rows=10 and start=1000 and it > took about 29 seconds to complete. However, it took less at each shard as > shown in the log file > [...] QTime=91 > [...] QTime=4 > the search in the second shard started AFTER 29 seconds. Any logic behind > what I am seeing here? It shows that the shard-searches themselves is not what is slowing you down. Are the returned documents very large? Try setting fl=id,score and see if it brings response times below 1 second. - Toke Eskildsen
Re: Solr Pagination
OK, this makes very little sense. The individual queries are taking < 100ms yet the total response is 29 seconds. I do note that one of your queries has rows=1010, a typo? Anyway, not at all sure what's going on here. If these are gigantic files you're returning, then it could be decompressing time, unlikely but possible. Try again with rows=0=1000 to see if it's something weird with getting the stored data, but that's highly doubtful. I think the only real way to get to the bottom of it will be to slap a profiler on it and see where the time is being spent. Best, Erick On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Toke Eskildsenwrote: > Salman Ansari wrote: >> Thanks Eric for your response. If you find pagination is not the main >> culprit, what other factors do you guys suggest I need to tweak to test >> that? > > Well, is basic search slow? What are your response times for plain un-warmed > top-20 searches? > >> As I mentioned, by navigating to 2 results using start and row I >> am getting time out from Solr.NET and I need a way to fix that. > > You still haven't answered my question: Do your users actually need to page > that far? > > > Again: I know there can be 10 million results. Why would your users need to > page through all of them? Why would they need to page trough just the first > 1000? What are they trying to achieve? > > If they used it automatically for full export of the result set, then I can > understand it, but you talked about next & previous page, which indicates > that this is a manual process. A manual process that requires clicking next > 1000 times is a severe indicator that something can be done differently. > > - Toke Eskildsen
Re: Solr Pagination
Salman Ansariwrote: > Thanks Eric for your response. If you find pagination is not the main > culprit, what other factors do you guys suggest I need to tweak to test > that? Well, is basic search slow? What are your response times for plain un-warmed top-20 searches? > As I mentioned, by navigating to 2 results using start and row I > am getting time out from Solr.NET and I need a way to fix that. You still haven't answered my question: Do your users actually need to page that far? Again: I know there can be 10 million results. Why would your users need to page through all of them? Why would they need to page trough just the first 1000? What are they trying to achieve? If they used it automatically for full export of the result set, then I can understand it, but you talked about next & previous page, which indicates that this is a manual process. A manual process that requires clicking next 1000 times is a severe indicator that something can be done differently. - Toke Eskildsen
Re: Solr Pagination
> Thanks Eric for your response. If you find pagination is not the main > culprit, what other factors do you guys suggest I need to tweak to test > that? Well, is basic search slow? What are your response times for plain un-warmed top-20 searches? I have restarted Solr and I have tried running a query "Football" on Solr and here are the results for start=0, rows=10 it took around 3.391 seconds for start=1000, rows=10 it took around 21.569 seconds *(btw, after trying the query the second time, it took around 332 ms, could you explain this behavior?)* I am not quite sure what do you mean by un-warmed search, but I do have autowarmed set to true for filtercache btw, here is the log for both queries and it looks like that indeed it does take that long for Solr to query INFO - 2015-10-09 18:46:17.937; [c:sabr102 s:shard2 r:core_node1 x:sabr102_shard2_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; [sabr102_shard2_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select params={ids=592367114956177408,590296378955407362,585347065619750912,584382847948951552=false=javabin=2=10=text=http:// [MySolrIP]:8983/solr/sabr102_shard2_replica1/|http://[MySolrIP]:7574/solr/sabr102_shard2_replica2/=116374563=0=64=(content_text:Football)=true=false} status=0 QTime=13 INFO - 2015-10-09 18:46:17.953; [c:sabr102 s:shard1 r:core_node2 x:sabr102_shard1_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; [sabr102_shard1_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select params={start=0=(content_text:Football)=10} hits=24408 status=0 QTime=3391 INFO - 2015-10-09 18:46:43.207; [c:sabr102 s:shard2 r:core_node1 x:sabr102_shard2_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; [sabr102_shard2_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select params={distrib=false=javabin=2=1010=text=id=score=http:// [MySolrIP]:8983/solr/sabr102_shard2_replica1/|http://[MySolrIP]:7574/solr/sabr102_shard2_replica2/=116403161=0=4=(content_text:Football)=true=true=false} hits=12198 status=0 QTime=32 INFO - 2015-10-09 18:47:04.727; [c:sabr102 s:shard1 r:core_node2 x:sabr102_shard1_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; [sabr102_shard1_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select params={start=1000=(content_text:Football)=10} hits=24408 status=0 QTime=21569 > As I mentioned, by navigating to 2 results using start and row I > am getting time out from Solr.NET and I need a way to fix that. You still haven't answered my question: Do your users actually need to page that far? No, they do not need to navigate to that level but I was checking the edge cases. Moreover, based on my previous query results, even navigating to the 100th page (1000 results as each page has 10 results, which they can easily do from the query strings in the URL or jumping bunch of pages at once in the UI as I am giving access to 10 pages at a time like Google or LinkedIn) the performance results are not promising. It shows that the shard-searches themselves is not what is slowing you down. Are the returned documents very large? Try setting fl=id,score and see if it brings response times below 1 second. I have around 50-60 fields per document in schema but not all of them get populated for each document. The main field that I am searching on is called content_text but that is usually small. I have tried running the following query on Solr http://[MySolrMachine]:8983/solr/sabr102/select?q=(content_text:Football)=1000=10=id,score and it took around 13.567 seconds *(the same goes here after running the query the second time, it took around 244 ms)* The log shows that it did take Solr that long INFO - 2015-10-09 18:54:44.271; [c:sabr102 s:shard1 r:core_node2 x:sabr102_shard1_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; [sabr102_shard1_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select params={fl=id,score=1000=(content_text:Football)=10} hits=24408 status=0 QTime=13567 INFO - 2015-10-09 19:02:41.732; [c:sabr102 s:shard2 r:core_node1 x:sabr102_shard2_replica1] org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore; [sabr102_shard2_replica1] webapp=/solr path=/select params={distrib=false=javabin=2=1010=text=id=score=http:// [MySolrIP]:8983/solr/sabr102_shard2_replica1/|http://[MySolrIP]:7574/solr/sabr102_shard2_replica2/=117361716=0=4=(content_text:Football)=true=true=false} hits=12198 status=0 QTime=9 *Why is it the case that for some reasons shard1 is taking way more longer than shard2?* I do note that one of your queries has rows=1010, a typo? No that was not a typo, Try again with rows=0=1000 to see if it's something weird with getting the stored data, but that's highly doubtful. I have tried the query "Salman" with rows=0, start=1000 and it took around 13.819 seconds. I think the only real way to get to the bottom of it will be to slap a profiler on it and see where the time is being spent. Can you direct me to a good profiler for Solr? Regards, Salman On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Erick Ericksonwrote: > OK, this makes very little sense. The individual queries are taking < 100ms > yet the total response is 29 seconds. I do note that one
Re: Solr Pagination
Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really deep and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what they need? The issue is that currently I have around 70M documents and some generic queries are resulting in lots of pages. Now if I try deep navigation (to page# 1000 for example), a lot of times the query takes so long that Solr.NET throws operation time out exception. The first page is relatively faster to load but it does take around few seconds as well. After reading some documentation I realized that cursors could help and it does. I have tried to following the test better performance: 1) Used cursors instead of start and row 2) Increased the RAM on my Solr machine to 14GB 3) Increase the JVM on that machine to 4GB 4) Increased the filterChache 5) Increased the docCache 6) Run Optimize on the Solr Admin but still I get delays of around 16 seconds and sometimes even more. What other mechanisms do you suggest I should use to handle this issue? While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K might also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? I can limit users not to go beyond 10K but still think at that level cursors will be much faster than increasing the start variable as explained here (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Pagination+of+Results ), have you tried both ways on your collection and it was giving you similar results? On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> wrote: > Salman Ansari <salman.rah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [Pagination with cursors] > > > For example, what happens if the user navigates from page 1 to page 2, > > does the front end need to store the next cursor at each query? > > Yes. > > > What about going to a previous page, do we need to store all cursors > > that have been navigated up to now at the client side? > > Yes, if you want to provide that functionality. > > Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really deep > and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what they > need? > > While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the > difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K might > also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? > > - Toke Eskildsen >
Re: Solr Pagination
I think paging is something of a red herring. You say: bq: but still I get delays of around 16 seconds and sometimes even more. Even for a start of 1,000, this is ridiculously long for Solr. All you're really saving here is keeping a record of the id and score for a list 1,000 cells long (or even 20,000 assuming 1,000 pages and 20 docs/page). that's somewhat wasteful, but it's still hard to believe it's responsible for what you're seeing. Having 4G of RAM for 70M docs is very little memory, assuming this is on a single shard. So my suspicion is that you have something fundamentally slow about your system, the additional overhead shouldn't be as large as you're reporting. And I'll second Toke's comment. It's very rare that users see anything _useful_ by navigating that deep. Make them hit next next next and they'll tire out way before that. Cursor mark's sweet spot is handling some kind of automated process that goes through the whole result set. It'll work for what you're trying to do though. Best, Erick On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:27 AM, Salman Ansari <salman.rah...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really deep > and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what they > need? > > The issue is that currently I have around 70M documents and some generic > queries are resulting in lots of pages. Now if I try deep navigation (to > page# 1000 for example), a lot of times the query takes so long that > Solr.NET throws operation time out exception. The first page is relatively > faster to load but it does take around few seconds as well. After reading > some documentation I realized that cursors could help and it does. I have > tried to following the test better performance: > > 1) Used cursors instead of start and row > 2) Increased the RAM on my Solr machine to 14GB > 3) Increase the JVM on that machine to 4GB > 4) Increased the filterChache > 5) Increased the docCache > 6) Run Optimize on the Solr Admin > > but still I get delays of around 16 seconds and sometimes even more. > What other mechanisms do you suggest I should use to handle this issue? > > While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the > difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K might > also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? > I can limit users not to go beyond 10K but still think at that level > cursors will be much faster than increasing the start variable as explained > here (https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Pagination+of+Results > ), have you tried both ways on your collection and it was giving you > similar results? > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> > wrote: > >> Salman Ansari <salman.rah...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [Pagination with cursors] >> >> > For example, what happens if the user navigates from page 1 to page 2, >> > does the front end need to store the next cursor at each query? >> >> Yes. >> >> > What about going to a previous page, do we need to store all cursors >> > that have been navigated up to now at the client side? >> >> Yes, if you want to provide that functionality. >> >> Is this a real problem or a worry? Do you have users that page really deep >> and if so, have you considered other mechanisms for delivering what they >> need? >> >> While pagination is faster than increasing the start parameter, the >> difference is small as long as you stay below a start of 1000. 10K might >> also work for you. Do your users page beyond that? >> >> - Toke Eskildsen >>