We've got a patch to prevent the exceptions: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9712
-Yonik On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Joel Bernstein <joels...@gmail.com> wrote: > The question about allowing more the one on-deck searcher is a good one. > The current behavior with maxWarmingSearcher config is to throw an > exception if searchers are being opened too frequently. There is probably a > good reason why it was done this way but I'm not sure the history behind it. > > Currently I'm adding code to Alfresco's version of Solr that guards against > having more the one on-deck searcher. This allows users to set the commit > intervals low without having to worry about getting overlapping searchers. > Something like this might useful in the standard Solr as well, if people > don't like exceptions being thrown when searchers are opened too frequently. > > > Joel Bernstein > http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Trey Grainger <solrt...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Shawn and Joel both answered the question with seemingly opposite answers, >> but Joel's should be right. On Deck, as an idiom, means "getting ready to >> go next". I think it has it's history in military / naval terminology (a >> plane being "on deck" of an aircraft carrier was the next one to take off), >> and was later used heavily in baseball (the "on deck" batter was the one >> warming up to go next) and probably elsewhere. >> >> I've always understood the "on deck" searcher(s) being the same as the >> warming searcher(s). So you have the "active" searcher and them the warming >> or on deck searchers. >> >> -Trey >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Jihwan: >> > >> > Correct. Do note that there are two distinct warnings here: >> > 1> "Error opening new searcher. exceeded limit of >> maxWarmingSearchers".... >> > 2> "PERFORMANCE WARNING: Overlapping onDeckSearchers=..." >> > >> > in <1>, the new searcher is _not_ opened. >> > in <2>, the new searcher _is_ opened. >> > >> > In practice, getting either warning is an indication of >> > mis-configuration. Consider a very large filterCache with large >> > autowarm values. Every new searcher will then allocate space for the >> > filterCache so having <1> is there to prevent runaway situations that >> > lead to OOM errors. >> > >> > <2> is just letting you know that you should look at your usage of >> > commit so you can avoid <1>. >> > >> > Best, >> > Erick >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Jihwan Kim <jihwa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > why is there a setting (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have >> more >> > > than one: >> > > Isn't it also for a case of (frequent) update? For example, one update >> is >> > > committed. During the warming up for this commit, another update is >> > > made. In this case the new commit also go through another warming. If >> > the >> > > value is 1, the second warming will fail. More number of concurrent >> > > warming-up requires larger memory usage. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Erick Erickson < >> erickerick...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> bq: because shouldn't there only be one active >> > >> searcher at a time? >> > >> >> > >> Kind of. This is a total nit, but there can be multiple >> > >> searchers serving queries briefly (one hopes at least). >> > >> S1 is serving some query when S2 becomes >> > >> active and starts getting new queries. Until the last >> > >> query S1 is serving is complete, they both are active. >> > >> >> > >> bq: why is there a setting >> > >> (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets >> > >> you have more than one >> > >> >> > >> The contract is that when you commit (assuming >> > >> you're opening a new searcher), then all docs >> > >> indexed up to that point are visible. Therefore you >> > >> _must_ open a new searcher even if one is currently >> > >> warming or that contract would be violated. Since >> > >> warming can take minutes, not opening a new >> > >> searcher if one was currently warming could cause >> > >> quite a gap. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Best, >> > >> Erick >> > >> >> > >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Brent <brent.pear...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hmmm, conflicting answers. Given the infamous "PERFORMANCE WARNING: >> > >> > Overlapping onDeckSearchers" log message, it seems like the "they're >> > the >> > >> > same" answer is probably correct, because shouldn't there only be >> one >> > >> active >> > >> > searcher at a time? >> > >> > >> > >> > Although it makes me curious, if there's a warning about having >> > multiple >> > >> > (overlapping) warming searchers, why is there a setting >> > >> > (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more than one, or at >> > least, >> > >> > why ever set it to anything other than 1? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3. >> > >> nabble.com/on-deck-searcher-vs-warming-searcher- >> tp4309021p4309080.html >> > >> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >> >> > >>
