On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 16:31:35 +0000
Charlie Hull <char...@flax.co.uk> wrote:
> On 05/01/2017 13:30, Morten Bøgeskov wrote:
> > Hi.
> > We've got a SolrCloud which is sharded and has a replication factor of
> > 2.
> > The 2 replicas of a shard may look like this:
> > Num Docs: 5401023
> > Max Doc: 6388614
> > Deleted Docs: 987591
> > Num Docs: 5401023
> > Max Doc: 5948122
> > Deleted Docs: 547099
> > We've seen >10% difference in Max Doc at times with same Num Docs.
> > Our use case is few documents that are search and many small that
> > are filtered against (often updated multiple times a day), so the
> > difference in deleted docs aren't surprising.
> > This results in a different score for a document depending on which
> > replica it comes from. As I see it: it has to do with the different
> > maxDoc value when calculating idf.
> > This in turn alters a specific document's position in the search
> > result over reloads. This is quite confusing (duplicates in pagination).
> > What is the trick to get homogeneous score from different replicas.
> > We've tried using ExactStatsCache & ExactSharedStatsCache, but that
> > didn't seem to make any difference.
> > Any hints to this will be greatly appreciated.
> This was one of things we looked at during our recent Lucene London
> Hackday (see item 3) https://github.com/flaxsearch/london-hackday-2016
> I'm not sure there is a way to get a homogenous score - this patch tries
> to keep you connected to the same replica during a session so you don't
> see results jumping over pagination.
Sorry for the late reply.
I went with a new searcher, that inherits from SearchHandler.
This hashes the query, and uses that to select replicas to put in the
shards parameter (if it's a cloud, and a distributed query where shards
isn't already set), then passes it onto the original searcher.
Given sufficiently diverse end user queries, this gives an equal load
across the cloud. This could put a skewed load on nodes, if a query
suddenly becomes very popular or you have an opening page default query
(in our use case, quite unlikely).
Thanks for the input.
Morten Bøgeskov <m...@dbc.dk>