Fixed:
gem 'thinking-sphinx', '~> 3.0.4',
:git => 'git://github.com/pat/thinking-sphinx.git',
:branch => 'master',
:ref => 'c26b796c1e'
On 23/07/2013, at 1:11 AM, Daniel Vandersluis wrote:
> Yes, exactly. There is still a join which is now not being used at all.
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2013 10:02:38 AM UTC-4, Pat Allan wrote:
> To be clear: the join is appearing twice (incorrectly) instead of once (for
> the attributes that have been there a while)?
>
> On 22/07/2013, at 11:59 PM, Daniel Vandersluis wrote:
>
> > Alright so using the updated version (I just pulled the master version, I
> > saw there were some other fixes that looked good) does create a proper
> > query that sphinx can work with! I'm not really sure what different using
> > the query source should make, but searching still seems fast and indexing
> > was much faster.
> >
> > I noticed, however, that a join is still being created for the column in
> > the main sql_query despite no longer being necessary.
> >
> > On Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:41:09 PM UTC-4, Daniel Vandersluis wrote:
> > Thanks for your help with this, Pat - I will try out the updated version
> > ASAP (probably Monday morning) and let you know!
> >
> > On Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:11:59 PM UTC-4, Pat Allan wrote:
> > Hi Daniel
> >
> > Just pushed a fix for this - the GROUP_CONCAT certainly shouldn't be in
> > sql_query.
> >
> > If you want to use the latest:
> >
> > gem 'thinking-sphinx', '~> 3.0.4',
> > :git => 'git://github.com/pat/thinking-sphinx.git',
> > :branch => 'master',
> > :ref => '578ae397e7'
> >
> > Appreciate your patience with this.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > --
> > Pat
> >
> > On 19/07/2013, at 5:15 AM, Daniel Vandersluis wrote:
> >
> > > Seems to be because GROUP_CONCAT(job_applications_users.`job_id`
> > > SEPARATOR ',') AS `job_ids` was still being included in the sql_query
> > > line... is there another option I need to remove it?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:03:01 PM UTC-4, Daniel Vandersluis wrote:
> > > Hmm... when I try that I get this error:
> > >
> > > indexing index 'user_core'...
> > > ERROR: index 'user_core': multi-valued attribute 'job_ids' of wrong
> > > source-type found in query; must be 'field'.
> > >
> > > The line in the generated config file looks like this:
> > >
> > > sql_attr_multi = uint job_ids from query; SELECT
> > > `job_applications`.`user_id` * 9 + 1 AS `id`, `job_applications`.`job_id`
> > > AS `job_ids` FROM `job_applications`
> > >
> > > On Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:53:29 PM UTC-4, Daniel Vandersluis wrote:
> > > I will try out source: :query, thanks.
> > >
> > > In terms of last_job_application, it doesn't use an ORDER, there is a
> > > last_job_application_id foreign key on the model.
> > >
> > > On Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:16:03 PM UTC-4, Pat Allan wrote:
> > > Hi Daniel
> > >
> > > As for this issue: the short answer is I'm not entirely sure the index
> > > definition will always give you the results you're after. Although you do
> > > seem to be using MySQL, and that can be a little carefree with its
> > > approach to SQL results.
> > >
> > > You're asking for the 'last job application' - but ORDER clauses can't
> > > apply to joins, and so there's no guarantee that the job application in
> > > question for the three attributes is the 'last' one.
> > >
> > > That said, a potential work-around: change the new attribute definition
> > > so it's in a separate query:
> > >
> > > has job_applications.job_id, as: :job_ids, facet: true, source: :query
> > >
> > > That should remove the second join - and while it will involve a separate
> > > query, it may perform much better that way.
> > >
> > > Give it a shot.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pat
> > >
> > > On 18/07/2013, at 12:59 AM, Daniel Vandersluis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Index:
> > > >
> > > > define_index do
> > > > indexes 'TRIM(LOWER(first_name))', as: :first_name, :sortable =>
> > > > true
> > > > indexes 'TRIM(LOWER(last_name))', as: :last_name, :sortable => true
> > > > indexes email, :sortable => true
> > > > indexes resumes.document, :as => "document", :sortable => true
> > > >
> > > > has :id, :as => :user_id
> > > > has client_id
> > > > has updated_at
> > > > has is_internal
> > > >
> > > > has location.country_id, as: "country_id", facet: true
> > > > has location.state_id, as: "state_id"
> > > > has location.city_id, as: "city_id"
> > > > has 'RADIANS(locations.latitude)', as: :lat, type: :float
> > > > has 'RADIANS(locations.longitude)', as: :lng, type: :float
> > > >
> > > > has last_job_application.source.source_type_id, as:
> > > > "source_type_id"
> > > > has last_job_application.source_id, as: "source_id", facet: true
> > > > has last_job_application.application_status_id, as:
> > > > "application_status_id"
> > > >
> > > > has tags(:id), as: "tag_ids", facet: true
> > > > has profiles(:profile_type_id), as: "profile_type_ids", facet: true
> > > > has job_applications(:job_id), as: "job_ids", facet: true # THIS IS
> > > > THE NEW ATTRIBUTE !!!
> > > >
> > > > has candidate_answers(:answer_id), as: "candidate_answer_ids"
> > > >
> > > > set_property latitude_attr: "lat"
> > > > set_property longitude_attr: "lng"
> > > >
> > > > # By default due to our has many relationship with resumes
> > > > documents, MySQL only returns
> > > > # the first 1024 characters of the document. This enforces the size
> > > > during indexing.
> > > > set_property group_concat_max_len: 500000
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > Models:
> > > >
> > > > class User < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > belongs_to :last_job_application, class_name:
> > > > 'JobApplication'
> > > > has_many :resumes
> > > > has_many :job_applications, dependent: :destroy,
> > > > autosave: true
> > > > has_many :candidate_answers, through:
> > > > :job_applications
> > > > has_many :candidate_profiles, dependent: :delete_all
> > > > has_many :candidate_tags_candidate_users
> > > > has_many :candidate_tags, through:
> > > > :candidate_tags_candidate_users, source: :candidate_tag, dependent:
> > > > :delete_all
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > class JobApplication < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > belongs_to :user
> > > > belongs_to :application_status
> > > > belongs_to :job, counter_cache: true
> > > > belongs_to :source
> > > > end
> > > >
> > > > Please let me know if there's any other model you'd like to see,
> > > > thanks!
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 8:49:04 PM UTC-4, Pat Allan wrote:
> > > > Can you show us the index definition and the related associations?
> > > >
> > > > On 17/07/2013, at 5:02 AM, Daniel Vandersluis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I did an explain query, like I said, all the joins are indexed
> > > > > (either as primary keys or actual indexes). In both cases (before and
> > > > > after adding the attribute), it takes milliseconds to execute the
> > > > > query, but a while before all data has been collected.
> > > > >
> > > > > +----+-------------+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+---------+------------------------------------------------+-------+-------------+
> > > > >
> > > > > | id | select_type | table | type |
> > > > > possible_keys | key
> > > > > | key_len | ref
> > > > > | rows | Extra |
> > > > > +----+-------------+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+---------+------------------------------------------------+-------+-------------+
> > > > >
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | users | index | NULL
> > > > > | PRIMARY
> > > > > | 4 | NULL |
> > > > > 23754 | |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | documents | ref |
> > > > > index_documents_on_user_id |
> > > > > index_documents_on_user_id | 5 |
> > > > > prod-2013-05-28.users.id | 1 |
> > > > > |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | locations | eq_ref | PRIMARY
> > > > > | PRIMARY
> > > > > | 4 | prod-2013-05-28.users.location_id |
> > > > > 1 | |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | job_applications | eq_ref | PRIMARY
> > > > > | PRIMARY
> > > > > | 4 | prod-2013-05-28.users.last_job_application_id |
> > > > > 1 | |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | sources | eq_ref | PRIMARY
> > > > > | PRIMARY
> > > > > | 4 | prod-2013-05-28.job_applications.source_id |
> > > > > 1 | |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | tags_users | ref |
> > > > > index_tags_on_user_id | index_tags_on_user_id
> > > > > | 5 | prod-2013-05-28.users.id
> > > > > | 1 | |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | tags | eq_ref | PRIMARY
> > > > > | PRIMARY
> > > > > | 4 | prod-2013-05-28.tags_users.tag_id |
> > > > > 1 | Using index |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | profiles | ref |
> > > > > index_profiles_on_user_id_and_profile_type |
> > > > > index_profiles_on_user_id_and_profile_type | 5 |
> > > > > prod-2013-05-28.users.id | 1 | Using index
> > > > > |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | job_applications_users | ref |
> > > > > index_job_applications_on_user_id |
> > > > > index_job_applications_on_user_id | 5 |
> > > > > prod-2013-05-28.users.id | 1 |
> > > > > |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | job_applications_users_join | ref |
> > > > > index_job_applications_on_user_id |
> > > > > index_job_applications_on_user_id | 5 |
> > > > > prod-2013-05-28.users.id | 1 | Using index
> > > > > |
> > > > > | 1 | SIMPLE | candidate_answers | ref |
> > > > > uidx_on_candidate_answers |
> > > > > uidx_on_candidate_answers | 5 |
> > > > > prod-2013-05-28.job_applications_users_join.id | 8 | Using index
> > > > > |
> > > > > +----+-------------+-----------------------------+--------+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------------------------+---------+------------------------------------------------+-------+-------------+
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The join is exactly the same except for the alias:
> > > > >
> > > > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `job_applications` `job_applications_users`
> > > > > ON `job_applications_users`.`user_id` = `users`.`id`
> > > > > LEFT OUTER JOIN `job_applications` `job_applications_users_join`
> > > > > ON `job_applications_users_join`.`user_id` = `users`.`id`
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 2:12:02 PM UTC-4, Pat Allan wrote:
> > > > > Hi Daniel
> > > > > Any slowness in indexing is going to be related to the generated SQL
> > > > > query - when you say the query itself seems fast, how are you
> > > > > comparing it? I'd recommend running it through EXPLAIN to get some
> > > > > idea of what could be causing it to be slow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any way in which the join is different beyond the aliased
> > > > > name?
> > > > >
> > > > > As for upgrading - I'm not sure if there's been any changes related
> > > > > to query generation, but using the latest releases is always
> > > > > recommended (in this case, 2.1.0).
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Pat
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 17/07/2013, at 3:09 AM, Daniel Vandersluis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any reason an index would suddenly take 3x as long to
> > > > > > index after adding an extra has_many attribute to the index
> > > > > > definition? The query itself is completely indexed, and takes about
> > > > > > 1.5ms to run (plus data collection time, there are about 200k
> > > > > > records in the main table that is being indexed, plus a bunch of
> > > > > > attributes - sphinx reports it as a 466MB index). Prior to adding
> > > > > > the extra attribute, indexing took about 9 minutes, and now it
> > > > > > takes 29. The new attribute averages just over 1 record per row,
> > > > > > with a maximum of 78.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Possibly related is that adding the new attribute causes the query
> > > > > > TS generates to add a duplicate join (with a different alias) to a
> > > > > > join that's added by a different attribute (however as mentioned
> > > > > > the query itself seems to be fast).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm using ThinkingSphinx 2.0.11 currently - would updating to TS3
> > > > > > help?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > > > > Groups "Thinking Sphinx" group.
> > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> > > > > > send an email to [email protected].
> > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > > > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx.
> > > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > > > Groups "Thinking Sphinx" group.
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> > > > > send an email to [email protected].
> > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx.
> > > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > > Groups "Thinking Sphinx" group.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > > > an email to [email protected].
> > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx.
> > > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Thinking Sphinx" group.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > > email to [email protected].
> > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx.
> > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Thinking Sphinx" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to [email protected].
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thinking Sphinx" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thinking Sphinx" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
