I’m not sure why the sizes are so different, but I think the overall issue is related to the three attributes that have :source => :query.
I’d recommend making two changes to each of them: * Add a condition to each query that filters by the appropriate incident ids (like you’re doing for the main query) so the results are sharded in the same way. * Perhaps add a second SQL statement to each of those attributes (separated by a semi-colon), with :source set to :ranged_query, as covered in the Sphinx documentation: http://sphinxsearch.com/docs/current.html#conf-sql-attr-multi <http://sphinxsearch.com/docs/current.html#conf-sql-attr-multi> The first of those isn’t too complex, so I’d start with that. Certainly the second is far more fiddly, but may be worthwhile. Hope this helps! — Pat > On 29 Jun 2015, at 8:52 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > I even less understand the number of bytes in delta indexes 6 - 10. Why does > 1_delta contain 1128 bytes and 6_delta 24M? They're on the same records. > > On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 9:03:04 AM UTC+3, [email protected] wrote: > Rails version: 4.1.7 > TS version: 3.0.6 > > On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 5:17:37 AM UTC+3, Pat Allan wrote: > Hi Jonathan > > Can you share your index definitions so I can get a better idea of where the > problem might be? > > Also: which versions of Rails and Thinking Sphinx are you using? > > — > Pat > >> On 28 Jun 2015, at 11:47 pm, [email protected] <> wrote: >> >> Hi Pat, >> >> I implemented according to this, and the indexing time went down (5 times >> faster on development). However, the delta indexing time went up (30 times >> slower on development). See below the indexing stats: >> >> Total docs Bytes Time (sec) Total docs >> Bytes Time (sec) >> incident_index_1_core 7331 6531122 39.436 >> incident_index_6_core 7331 28239593 8.802 >> incident_index_1_delta 6 1128 0.184 >> incident_index_6_delta 6 24763425 5.234 >> incident_index_2_core 7319 6751189 45.477 >> incident_index_7_core 7319 28331726 8.819 >> incident_index_2_delta 5 843 0.233 >> incident_index_7_delta 5 24763289 5.321 >> incident_index_3_core 7390 6803814 42.064 >> incident_index_8_core 7390 28310121 7.913 >> incident_index_3_delta 8 2143 0.203 >> incident_index_8_delta 8 24764366 5.282 >> incident_index_4_core 7278 6377664 37.665 >> incident_index_9_core 7278 28162260 7.891 >> incident_index_4_delta 6 1108 0.436 >> incident_index_9_delta 6 24763330 5.456 >> incident_index_5_core 7396 6601358 39.704 >> incident_index_10_core 7396 28152075 9.562 >> incident_index_5_delta 6 944 0.216 >> incident_index_10_delta 6 24763308 5.303 >> >> Any idea why this is happening? >> >> Thanks, >> Jonathan >> >> On Friday, July 26, 2013 at 3:57:38 PM UTC+3, Pat Allan wrote: >> Heya Steve >> >> Was just looking into how difficult this would be to implement properly, and >> noticed I have added the ability to take a string as the source query - >> instead of the column references. So, it's possible without hacking around >> in the index definition itself: >> >> https://gist.github.com/pat/6088629 <https://gist.github.com/pat/6088629> >> >> It's worth noting that the document id (Sphinx's equivalent of a primary >> key) involves the normal primary key with an offset and a multiplier. Make >> sure those two integers match what's in your generated index in sql_query. >> They may change when you add other indices to your app (depends on >> alphabetical order of your index files). >> >> Also: there's probably some metaprogramming you could add to simplify things >> a bit more. >> >> Would love to hear if this approach helps with your real app and not just >> the test one :) >> >> -- >> Pat >> >> On 26/07/2013, at 12:14 AM, Pat Allan wrote: >> >> > Hi Steve >> > >> > I've got a way forward to greatly improve the speed of indexing… >> > unfortunately, it's not going to work within Thinking Sphinx easily right >> > now. >> > >> > Sphinx has the ability to gather attribute and field values from separate >> > queries - this existed for TS v1/v2 for attributes, and fields was added >> > in TS v3, but the catch is those separate queries don't work for HABTM >> > joins. I'd love to change that, it's just painful from an ActiveRecord >> > perspective because you're not dealing with a model's table as the base, >> > but the HABTM join table. >> > >> > Here's the configuration for the relevant source that I modified by hand: >> > https://gist.github.com/pat/6080031 <https://gist.github.com/pat/6080031> >> > >> > You'll see that the main query is nice and short - and then there's each >> > of the MVA and joined field definitions. If you put this in the generated >> > source definition in config/development.sphinx.conf, and then run the >> > indexer manually (NOT through the rake task, that'll overwrite this): >> > indexer --config config/development.sphinx.conf --all --rotate >> > >> > (Remove --rotate if Sphinx isn't running.) You'll see it's pretty damn >> > fast. >> > >> > Now, ways forward? Well, I'd love to write something for TS v3 that can >> > handle HABTM - it's just a shame that it might need to be pure ARel rather >> > than ActiveRecord-built (which can otherwise help with joins). >> > >> > But otherwise: switch from HABTM to has_many/has_many :through - make each >> > of the joins an actual model. Then, you can add :source => :query to each >> > of the appropriate field and attribute definitions, and it should generate >> > something pretty much the same. >> > >> > Hope this provides some clarity at the very least! And also: thanks for >> > the test app, really helped with debugging! >> > >> > -- >> > Pat >> > >> > >> > On 25/07/2013, at 2:54 PM, Steve Kenworthy wrote: >> > >> >> Hi there, >> >> >> >> Firstly, thinking-sphinx is awesome and I love it. Thanks Pat for an >> >> excellent project. V3 is looking great and represents a lot of hard work >> >> and effort. >> >> >> >> I've been using thinking-sphinx to index a document model and it's really >> >> slowed down when I add lots of associations in the index. In fact, it >> >> never finishes on my machine (8Gig RAM, 8 CPU's) when I add 4 indexes. >> >> >> >> Times: >> >> • 4 seconds - when 1 association (images) is indexed >> >> • 6 seconds - when 2 associations (images and subscribers) are >> >> indexed >> >> • 23 seconds - when 2 associations (images and countries) are >> >> indexed >> >> • 115 seconds - when 3 associations (images, subscribers and >> >> tags) are indexed >> >> • 113 seconds - when 3 associations (images, subscribers and >> >> videos) are indexed (just to prove it's not tags slowing it down) >> >> • ꝏ (not finishing) - when 4 associations or more are selected. >> >> >> >> Here's my index file: >> >> >> >> ThinkingSphinx::Index.define :document, with: :active_record, delta: >> >> true, sql_range_step: 999999999, group_concat_max_len: 16384 do >> >> >> >> has countries(:id), as: :country_ids >> >> has images(:id), as: :image_ids, facet: true >> >> has subscribers(:id), as: :subscriber_ids, facet: true >> >> has tags(:id), as: :tag_ids, facet: true >> >> has videos(:id), as: :video_ids, facet: true >> >> >> >> indexes countries.name <http://countries.name/>, as: :countries >> >> indexes images.title, as: :images >> >> indexes subscribers.title, as: :subscribers >> >> indexes tags.name <http://tags.name/>, as: :tags >> >> indexes videos.title, as: :videos >> >> >> >> has updated_at >> >> >> >> end >> >> >> >> The generated sql is a massive group_by query and is not finishing. See >> >> it here >> >> https://github.com/crossroads/rails3-ts-example#what-sphinx-is-doing >> >> <https://github.com/crossroads/rails3-ts-example#what-sphinx-is-doing> >> >> >> >> I'd really appreciate some advice on how to optimise this so indexing >> >> becomes viable again. Do I just have too much going on here? I'm using >> >> facets, indexes and attributes. Perhaps there is a better way to >> >> optimise? A friend suggested pre-computing with some joins... how would >> >> this work? >> >> >> >> Vital stats: using mysql v14.14, sphinx 2.0.4, Ubuntu, rails 3.2.13, >> >> thinking-sphinx 3.0.4 >> >> >> >> For those who'd like to take a look, I've uploaded a sample project here >> >> https://github.com/crossroads/rails3-ts-example >> >> <https://github.com/crossroads/rails3-ts-example> which can be cloned. If >> >> you follow the instructions, it will setup a db with test data and >> >> reproduce the problem quickly. >> >> >> >> There's also the sphinx generated SQL and EXPLAIN: >> >> https://github.com/crossroads/rails3-ts-example#what-sphinx-is-doing >> >> <https://github.com/crossroads/rails3-ts-example#what-sphinx-is-doing> >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance for anyone taking the time to read. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 thinking-sphi...@ <>googlegroups.com <http://googlegroups.com/>. >> >> To post to this group, send email to thinkin...@ <>googlegroups. >> >> <http://googlegroups.com/>com <http://googlegroups.com/>. >> >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx >> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx>. >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out >> >> <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 thinking-sphi...@ <>googlegroups.com <http://googlegroups.com/>. >> > To post to this group, send email to thinkin...@ <>googlegroups. >> > <http://googlegroups.com/>com <http://googlegroups.com/>. >> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx >> > <http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx>. >> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out >> > <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 >> <http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout >> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. > > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx > <http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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/d/optout.
