Hi, I did some more tests for Hunspell in solr 3.4, 4.0:
Solr 3.4, full import 489017 documents: StempelPolishStemFilterFactory - 2908 seconds, 168 docs/sec HunspellStemFilterFactory - 3922 seconds, 125 docs/sec Solr 4.0, full import 489017 documents: StempelPolishStemFilterFactory - 3016 seconds, 162 docs/sec HunspellStemFilterFactory - 44580 seconds (more than 12 hours), 11 docs/sec Server specification and Java settings are the same as before. Cheers Agnieszka > -----Original Message----- > From: Agnieszka Kukałowicz [mailto:agnieszka.kukalow...@usable.pl] > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:39 AM > To: 'solr-user@lucene.apache.org' > Subject: RE: solr 3.5 and indexing performance > > Hi, > > Yes, I confirmed that without Hunspell indexing has normal speed. > I did tests in solr 4.0 with Hunspell and PolishStemmer. > With StempelPolishStemFilterFactory the speed is normal. > > My schema is quit easy. For Hunspell I have one text field I copy 14 > text fields to: > > "<field name="text" type="text_pl_hunspell" indexed="true" > stored="false" multiValued="true"/>" > > > <copyField source="field1" dest="text"/> <copyField source="field2" > dest="text"/> <copyField source="field3" dest="text"/> <copyField > source="field4" dest="text"/> <copyField source="field5" dest="text"/> > <copyField source="field6" dest="text"/> <copyField source="field7" > dest="text"/> <copyField source="field8" dest="text"/> <copyField > source="field9" dest="text"/> <copyField source="field10" dest="text"/> > <copyField source="field11" dest="text"/> <copyField source="field12" > dest="text"/> <copyField source="field13" dest="text"/> <copyField > source="field14" dest="text"/> > > The "text_pl_hunspell" configuration: > > <fieldType name="text_pl_hunspell" class="solr.TextField" > positionIncrementGap="100"> > <analyzer type="index"> > <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" > ignoreCase="true" > words="dict/stopwords_pl.txt" > enablePositionIncrements="true" > /> > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.HunspellStemFilterFactory" > dictionary="dict/pl_PL.dic" affix="dict/pl_PL.aff" ignoreCase="true" > <!--filter class="solr.KeywordMarkerFilterFactory" > protected="protwords_pl.txt"/--> > </analyzer> > <analyzer type="query"> > <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.SynonymFilterFactory" > synonyms="dict/synonyms_pl.txt" ignoreCase="true" expand="true"/> > <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" > ignoreCase="true" > words="dict/stopwords_pl.txt" > enablePositionIncrements="true" > /> > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.HunspellStemFilterFactory" > dictionary="dict/pl_PL.dic" affix="dict/pl_PL.aff" ignoreCase="true" > <filter class="solr.KeywordMarkerFilterFactory" > protected="dict/protwords_pl.txt"/> > </analyzer> > </fieldType> > > I use Polish dictionary (files stopwords_pl.txt, protwords_pl.txt, > synonyms_pl.txt are empy)- pl_PL.dic, pl_PL.aff. These are the same > files I used in 3.4 version. > > For Polish Stemmer the diffrence is only in definion text field: > > "<field name="text" type="text_pl" indexed="true" stored="false" > multiValued="true"/>" > > <fieldType name="text_pl" class="solr.TextField" > positionIncrementGap="100"> > <analyzer type="index"> > <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" > ignoreCase="true" > words="dict/stopwords_pl.txt" > enablePositionIncrements="true" > /> > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.StempelPolishStemFilterFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.KeywordMarkerFilterFactory" > protected="dict/protwords_pl.txt"/> > </analyzer> > <analyzer type="query"> > <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.SynonymFilterFactory" > synonyms="dict/synonyms_pl.txt" ignoreCase="true" expand="true"/> > <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" > ignoreCase="true" > words="dict/stopwords_pl.txt" > enablePositionIncrements="true" > /> > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.StempelPolishStemFilterFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.KeywordMarkerFilterFactory" > protected="dict/protwords_pl.txt"/> > </analyzer> > </fieldType> > > One document has 23 fields: > - 14 text fields copy to one text field (above) that is only indexed > - 8 other indexed fields (2 strings, 2 tdates, 3 tint, 1 tfloat) The > size of one document is 3-4 kB. > So, I think this is not very complicated schema. > > My environment is: > - Linux, RedHat 6.2, kernel 2.6.32 > - 2 physical CPU Xeon 5606 (4 cores each) > - 32 GB RAM > - 2 SSD disks in RAID 0 > - java version: > > java -version > java version "1.6.0_26" > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_26-b03) Java HotSpot(TM) > 64-Bit Server VM (build 20.1-b02, mixed mode) > > - java is running with -server -Xms4096M -Xmx4096M (I tried a lot of > other settings and always I have the same effect) > - solr has default configuration except Rambuffersize (128MB) > - solr 4.0 from nightly builds (2012-02-21 build). > > If you need more information, please let me know. > I also will try to use profile to see what happens. > > Agnieszka > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan....@cominvent.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:47 AM > > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > Subject: Re: solr 3.5 and indexing performance > > > > Hi, > > > > Have you confirmed that disabling Hunspell in solrconfig gets you back > > to normal speed? > > What Hunspell configuration and dictionaries do you have? > > Can you share more about your environment and documents? > > Do you have a chance to run a profiler on your Solr instance? Try i.e. > > VisualVM and run the profiler to see what part of the code takes up > > the time > > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/tools/share/jvisualvm.h > > t > > ml > > > > -- > > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - > > www.cominvent.com Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com > > > > On 12. mars 2012, at 16:42, Agnieszka Kukałowicz wrote: > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > I have hit the same problem with Hunspell. > > > Doing a few tests for 500 000 documents, I've got: > > > > > > Hunspell from http://code.google.com/p/lucene-hunspell/ with 3.4 > > > version - > > > 125 documents per second > > > Build Hunspell from 4.0 trunk - 11 documents per second. > > > > > > All the tests were made on 8 core CPU with 32 GB RAM and index on > > > SSD disks. > > > For Solr 3.5 I've tried to change JVM heap size, rambuffersize, > > > mergefactor but the speed of indexing was about 10 -20 documents per > > > second. > > > > > > Is it possible that there is some performance bug with Solr 4.0? > > > According to previous post the problem exists in 3.5 version. > > > > > > Best regards > > > Agnieszka Kukałowicz > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: mizayah [mailto:miza...@gmail.com] > > >> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:19 AM > > >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: solr 3.5 and indexing performance > > >> > > >> Ok i found it. > > >> > > >> Its becouse of Hunspell which now is in solr. Somehow when im using > > >> it by myself in 3.4 it is a lot of faster then one from 3.5. > > >> > > >> Dont know about differences, but is there any way i use my old > > Google > > >> Hunspell jar? > > >> > > >> -- > > >> View this message in context: > > >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr- > > >> 3-5-and-indexing-performance-tp3766653p3769139.html > > >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
