Hi Paul, The tests in fact do multiple complete crawls, so it is extremely unlikely that the stuffer query is broken. If you look at the queries generated, you should note that the only difference is that whenever an xxx IN(?,?) was generated before, a (xxx=? OR xxx=?) is generated instead. These should be completely equivalent; if they don't look equivalent to you in the log, then I will fix whatever is broken. I'll make sure here that the queries look right visually too.
One possibility is that when you restarted the agents process, the jobqueue records did not yet finish getting reprioritized. Stuffer queries are fired all the time, but the running jobs must complete reprioritization before the stuffer query will pick up any records. I wonder if they may not have managed to get to the right state before you aborted the experiment? You can tell what is happening by using jstack to get a thread dump of the agents process. Thanks, Karl On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Paul Boichat <[email protected]> wrote: > I stayed with base 1.6.1 and manually patched the code to include the two > new methods in DBInterfacePostgreSQL > > Paul > > > > VP Engineering, > Exonar Ltd > > T: +44 7940 567724 > > twitter:@exonarco @pboichat > W: http://www.exonar.com > Nothing is secure. Now what? Exonar Raven <http://video.exonar.com/> > > Exonar Limited, registered in the UK, registration number 06439969 at 14 > West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5HG > DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and > are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. > Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not > necessarily represent those of Exonar Ltd. If you are not the intended > recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its > contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you > believe you have received this email in error. > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The changes pass all tests here. Is it possible that you attempted some >> upgrade that failed (or didn't attempt upgrade but went to a new code >> version)? >> >> If you could let me know as exactly as possible what you did, I can let >> you know if that should have worked or not. >> >> Thanks! >> Karl >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Paul Boichat <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Karl, >>> >>> We appear to be seeing an issue with the performance change to use an OR >>> clause rather than IN. After making the change, when we restart manifoldcf >>> (with one job in running state) documents in the running job are not picked >>> up for processing by the stuffer thread. If we redploy base 1.6.1 and >>> restart documents are processed. This is consistently switchable depending >>> on which code base is deployed. >>> >>> We have logs that I could upload to the ticket if you recommend that we >>> reopen the issue (or create a new one)? >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> VP Engineering, >>> Exonar Ltd >>> >>> T: +44 7940 567724 >>> >>> twitter:@exonarco @pboichat >>> W: http://www.exonar.com >>> Nothing is secure. Now what? Exonar Raven <http://video.exonar.com/> >>> >>> Exonar Limited, registered in the UK, registration number 06439969 at 14 >>> West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5HG >>> DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments to it may be confidential >>> and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is >>> addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author >>> and do not necessarily represent those of Exonar Ltd. If you are not >>> the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action >>> based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact >>> the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Paul -- >>>> >>>> Just to be clear -- the branch for CONNECTORS-1027 is a branch of >>>> trunk, which is MCF 2.0. MCF 2.0 is not backwards compatible with any >>>> previous MCF release, and indeed there is no upgrade from any 1.x release >>>> to 2.0. That's why I said to use the patches, and try to stay on 1.6.1 or >>>> at most to migrate to 1.7. >>>> >>>> IF you ALREADY tried an upgrade with the branch code, then you would >>>> have wound up in a schema state where the schema had more columns in it >>>> than the branch knew how to deal with. That's bad, and you will need to do >>>> things to fix the situation. I believe you should still be able to do the >>>> following: >>>> >>>> - Download 1.7 source, or check out >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/manifoldcf/branches/release-1.7-branch >>>> - Apply the patches >>>> - Build >>>> - Modify your properties.xml to point to your postgresql instance >>>> - Run the upgrade (initialize.bat on the multi-process example, or >>>> start the single-process example) >>>> >>>> You should then have a working 1.7 release, with code patches applied. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Karl >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Paul Boichat <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks - we've pulled down the branch and will test the changes. It >>>>> looks like a branch of 1.7 so it's going to take us a little while to >>>>> test. >>>>> We need to migrate our connectors (there's some deprecated stuff that's >>>>> now >>>>> been cleared in 1.7 .eg. getShareACL) and we'll need to patch the database >>>>> to include the pipeline and any other schema changes. We'll have some >>>>> environment contention over the next week as our performance test >>>>> environment needs to remain on 1.6.1 while we test a release. Once that's >>>>> clear I'll move to 1.7 >>>>> >>>>> On the database schema patch moving from 1.6.1 to 1.7 - is there a >>>>> simple way to migrate and existing database? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Paul >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> VP Engineering, >>>>> Exonar Ltd >>>>> >>>>> T: +44 7940 567724 >>>>> >>>>> twitter:@exonarco @pboichat >>>>> W: http://www.exonar.com >>>>> Nothing is secure. Now what? Exonar Raven <http://video.exonar.com/> >>>>> >>>>> Exonar Limited, registered in the UK, registration number 06439969 at 14 >>>>> West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5HG >>>>> DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments to it may be confidential >>>>> and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is >>>>> addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author >>>>> and do not necessarily represent those of Exonar Ltd. If you are not >>>>> the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action >>>>> based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please >>>>> contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks -- I'll include that change as well then, in ticket >>>>>> CONNECTORS-1027. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Karl >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Paul Boichat < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That comes back immediately with 10001 rows: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> explain analyze SELECT count(*) FROM (SELECT 'x' FROM jobqueue LIMIT >>>>>>> 10001) t; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> QUERY PLAN >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> ---------------------------------- >>>>>>> Aggregate (cost=544.08..544.09 rows=1 width=0) (actual >>>>>>> time=9.125..9.125 rows=1 loops=1) >>>>>>> -> Limit (cost=0.00..419.07 rows=10001 width=0) (actual >>>>>>> time=0.033..6.945 rows=10001 loops=1) >>>>>>> -> Index Only Scan using jobqueue_pkey on jobqueue >>>>>>> (cost=0.00..431189.31 rows=10290271 width=0) (actual time >>>>>>> =0.031..3.257 rows=10001 loops=1) >>>>>>> Heap Fetches: 725 >>>>>>> Total runtime: 9.157 ms >>>>>>> (5 rows) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whereas: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> explain analyze SELECT count(*) FROM jobqueue limit 10001; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> QUERY PLAN >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>>> Limit (cost=456922.99..456923.00 rows=1 width=0) (actual >>>>>>> time=5225.107..5225.109 rows=1 loops=1) >>>>>>> -> Aggregate (cost=456922.99..456923.00 rows=1 width=0) (actual >>>>>>> time=5225.105..5225.106 rows=1 loops=1) >>>>>>> -> Index Only Scan using jobqueue_pkey on jobqueue >>>>>>> (cost=0.00..431197.31 rows=10290271 width=0) (actual time >>>>>>> =0.108..3090.848 rows=10370209 loops=1) >>>>>>> Heap Fetches: 684297 >>>>>>> Total runtime: 5225.151 ms >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> VP Engineering, >>>>>>> Exonar Ltd >>>>>>> >>>>>>> T: +44 7940 567724 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> twitter:@exonarco @pboichat >>>>>>> W: http://www.exonar.com >>>>>>> Nothing is secure. Now what? Exonar Raven <http://video.exonar.com/> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exonar Limited, registered in the UK, registration number 06439969 >>>>>>> at 14 West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5HG >>>>>>> DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments to it may be >>>>>>> confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to >>>>>>> whom >>>>>>> it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the >>>>>>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Exonar Ltd. If you >>>>>>> are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any >>>>>>> action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please >>>>>>> contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Could you try this query on your database please and tell me if it >>>>>>>> executes promptly: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> SELECT count(*) FROM (SELECT 'x' FROM jobqueue LIMIT 10001) t >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I vaguely remember that I had to change the form of this query in >>>>>>>> order to support MySQL -- but first let's see if this helps. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Karl Wright <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've created a ticket (CONNECTORS-1027) and a trunk-based branch >>>>>>>>> (branches/CONNECTORS-1027) for looking at any changes we do for >>>>>>>>> large-scale >>>>>>>>> Postgresql optimization work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please note that trunk code already has schema changes relative to >>>>>>>>> MCF 1.7, so you will not be able to work directly with this branch >>>>>>>>> code. >>>>>>>>> I'll have to create patches for whatever changes you would need to >>>>>>>>> try. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Paul Boichat < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We're on Postgres 9.2. I'll get the query plans and add them to >>>>>>>>>> the doc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> VP Engineering, >>>>>>>>>> Exonar Ltd >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 7940 567724 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> twitter:@exonarco @pboichat >>>>>>>>>> W: http://www.exonar.com >>>>>>>>>> Nothing is secure. Now what? Exonar Raven >>>>>>>>>> <http://video.exonar.com/> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Exonar Limited, registered in the UK, registration number >>>>>>>>>> 06439969 at 14 West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5HG >>>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments to it may be >>>>>>>>>> confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual >>>>>>>>>> to whom >>>>>>>>>> it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Exonar Ltd. If >>>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither >>>>>>>>>> take any >>>>>>>>>> action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please >>>>>>>>>> contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in >>>>>>>>>> error. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Karl Wright <[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you include the logged plan for this query; this is an >>>>>>>>>>> actual query encountered during crawling: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-05 12:43:39,897 (Worker thread '61') - Found a >>>>>>>>>>> long-running query (596499 ms): [SELECT t0.id,t0.dochash,t0.docid >>>>>>>>>>> FROM carrydown t1, jobqueue t0 WHERE t1.jobid=? AND >>>>>>>>>>> t1.parentidhash=? AND >>>>>>>>>>> t0.dochash=t1.childidhash AND t0.jobid=t1.jobid AND t1.isnew=?] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> These queries are all from the UI; it is what gets generated >>>>>>>>>>> when no limits are in place: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-05 12:33:47,445 (http-apr-8081-exec-2) - Found a >>>>>>>>>>> long-running query (166845 ms): [SELECT jobid,COUNT(dochash) AS >>>>>>>>>>> doccount >>>>>>>>>>> FROM jobqueue t1 GROUP BY jobid] >>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-05 12:33:47,908 (http-apr-8081-exec-3) - Found a >>>>>>>>>>> long-running query (107222 ms): [SELECT jobid,COUNT(dochash) AS >>>>>>>>>>> doccount >>>>>>>>>>> FROM jobqueue t1 GROUP BY jobid] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This query is from the UI with a limit of 1000000: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-05 12:33:45,390 (http-apr-8081-exec-10) - Found a >>>>>>>>>>> long-running query (254851 ms): [SELECT COUNT(dochash) AS doccount >>>>>>>>>>> FROM >>>>>>>>>>> jobqueue t1 LIMIT 1000001] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I honestly don't understand why PostgreSQL would execute a >>>>>>>>>>> sequential scan of the entire table when given a limit clause. It >>>>>>>>>>> certainly didn't used to do that. If you have any other >>>>>>>>>>> suggestions please >>>>>>>>>>> let me know. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Some queries show up in this list because MCF periodically >>>>>>>>>>> reindexes tables. For example, this query goes only against the >>>>>>>>>>> (small) >>>>>>>>>>> jobs table. Its poor performance on occasion is likely due to >>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>> else happening to the database, probably a reindex: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-05 12:43:40,404 (Finisher thread) - Found a >>>>>>>>>>> long-running query (592474 ms): [SELECT id FROM jobs WHERE status IN >>>>>>>>>>> (?,?,?,?,?) FOR UPDATE] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The final query is the document stuffing query, which is perhaps >>>>>>>>>>> the most critical query in the whole system: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> SELECT >>>>>>>>>>> t0.id >>>>>>>>>>> ,t0.jobid,t0.dochash,t0.docid,t0.status,t0.failtime,t0.failcount, >>>>>>>>>>> t0.priorityset FROM jobqueue t0 >>>>>>>>>>> WHERE t0.status IN ('P','G') AND t0.checkaction='R' AND >>>>>>>>>>> t0.checktime >>>>>>>>>>> <= 1407246846166 >>>>>>>>>>> AND EXISTS ( >>>>>>>>>>> SELECT 'x' FROM jobs t1 >>>>>>>>>>> WHERE t1.status IN ('A','a') AND t1.id=t0.jobid AND >>>>>>>>>>> t1.priority=5 >>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>> AND NOT EXISTS ( >>>>>>>>>>> SELECT 'x' FROM jobqueue t2 >>>>>>>>>>> WHERE t2.dochash=t0.dochash AND t2.status IN >>>>>>>>>>> ('A','F','a','f','D','d') AND t2.jobid!=t0.jobid >>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>> AND NOT EXISTS ( >>>>>>>>>>> SELECT 'x' FROM prereqevents t3,events t4 >>>>>>>>>>> WHERE t0.id=t3.owner AND t3.eventname=t4.name >>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>> ORDER BY t0.docpriority ASC >>>>>>>>>>> LIMIT 480; >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Your analysis of whether IN beats OR does not agree with >>>>>>>>>>> experiments I did on postgresql 8.7 which showed no difference. >>>>>>>>>>> What >>>>>>>>>>> Postgresql version are you using? Also, I trust you have query >>>>>>>>>>> plans that >>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate your claim? In any case, whether IN vs. OR is >>>>>>>>>>> generated is a >>>>>>>>>>> function of the MCF database driver, so this is trivial to >>>>>>>>>>> experiment >>>>>>>>>>> with. I'll create a ticket and a branch for experimentation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Paul Boichat < >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Karl, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Changing maxcountstatus to something much smaller (10,000) >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't seem to buy us that much on the table scan - in the >>>>>>>>>>>> attached you'll >>>>>>>>>>>> see that it's still taking a long time to return the job status >>>>>>>>>>>> page. Also >>>>>>>>>>>> in the attached are some sample other long running queries that >>>>>>>>>>>> we're >>>>>>>>>>>> beginning to see more frequently. There's also an example of a >>>>>>>>>>>> query that's >>>>>>>>>>>> frequently executed and regularly takes > 4 secs (plus a suggested >>>>>>>>>>>> change >>>>>>>>>>>> to improve performance). This one in particular would certainly >>>>>>>>>>>> benefit >>>>>>>>>>>> from a change to SSDs which should relieve the I/O bound >>>>>>>>>>>> bottleneck on >>>>>>>>>>>> postgres. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We're loading the system from 10mil towards 100mil so would be >>>>>>>>>>>> keen to work with you to optimise where possible. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> VP Engineering, >>>>>>>>>>>> Exonar Ltd >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> T: +44 7940 567724 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> twitter:@exonarco @pboichat >>>>>>>>>>>> W: http://www.exonar.com >>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is secure. Now what? Exonar Raven >>>>>>>>>>>> <http://video.exonar.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exonar Limited, registered in the UK, registration number >>>>>>>>>>>> 06439969 at 14 West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5HG >>>>>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments to it may be >>>>>>>>>>>> confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual >>>>>>>>>>>> to whom >>>>>>>>>>>> it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Exonar Ltd. If >>>>>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither >>>>>>>>>>>> take any >>>>>>>>>>>> action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. >>>>>>>>>>>> Please >>>>>>>>>>>> contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in >>>>>>>>>>>> error. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Karl Wright < >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The jobstatus query that uses count(*) should be doing >>>>>>>>>>>>> something like this when the maxdocumentstatuscount value is set: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> select count(*) from jobqueue where xxx limit 500001 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This will still do a sequential scan, but it will be an >>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted one, so you can control the maximum amount of time spent >>>>>>>>>>>>> doing the >>>>>>>>>>>>> query. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Paul Boichat < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We've had a play with maxstatuscount and couldn't stop it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> from count(*)-ing but I'll certainly have another look to see if >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've >>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're increasingly seeing long running threads and I'll put >>>>>>>>>>>>>> together some samples. As an example, on a job that's currently >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborting: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:29,900 (Job reset thread) - Found a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> long-running query (72902 ms): [UPDATE jobqueue SET >>>>>>>>>>>>>> docpriority=?,priorityset=NULL WHERE jobid=?] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:29,900 (Job reset thread) - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parameter 0: '1.000000001E9' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:29,900 (Job reset thread) - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parameter 1: '1407144048075' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:29,960 (Job reset thread) - Plan: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Update on jobqueue (cost=18806.08..445770.39 rows=764916 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> width=287) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:29,960 (Job reset thread) - Plan: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on jobqueue (cost=18806.08..445770.39 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rows=764916 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> width=287) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:29,960 (Job reset thread) - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plan: Recheck Cond: (jobid = 1407144048075::bigint) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:29,960 (Job reset thread) - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plan: -> Bitmap Index Scan on i1392985450177 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (cost=0.00..18614.85 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rows=764916 width=0) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:29,960 (Job reset thread) - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plan: Index Cond: (jobid = 1407144048075::bigint) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:29,960 (Job reset thread) - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:30,140 (Job reset thread) - Stats: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> n_distinct=4.0 most_common_vals={G,C,Z,P} >>>>>>>>>>>>>> most_common_freqs={0.40676665,0.36629999,0.16606666,0.060866665} >>>>>>>>>>>>>> WARN 2014-09-10 18:37:30,140 (Job reset thread) - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> VP Engineering, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exonar Ltd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> T: +44 7940 567724 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> twitter:@exonarco @pboichat >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W: http://www.exonar.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is secure. Now what? Exonar Raven >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://video.exonar.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exonar Limited, registered in the UK, registration number >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06439969 at 14 West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5HG >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments to it may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential and are intended solely for the use of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual to whom >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely >>>>>>>>>>>>>> those of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Exonar Ltd. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must >>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither take any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please >>>>>>>>>>>>>> contact the sender if you believe you have received this email >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in error. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Karl Wright < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the jobqueue scans from the UI, there is a parameter you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can set which limits the number of documents counted to at most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a specified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount. This uses a limit clause, which should prevent >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unbounded time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing these kinds of queries: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> org.apache.manifoldcf.ui.maxstatuscount >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The documentation says that the default value for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameter is 10000, which however is incorrect. The actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true default is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 500000. You could set that lower for better UI performance >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (losing some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information, of course.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As for long-running queries, a lot of time and effort has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been spent in MCF to insure that this doesn't happen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main document queuing query is structured to read directly out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specific jobqueue index. This is the crucial query that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work properly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for scalability, since doing a query that is effectively just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire jobqueue would be a major problem. There are some times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Postgresql's optimizer fails to do the right thing here, mostly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes a huge distinction between whether there's zero of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something or one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of something, but you can work around that particular issue by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> setting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyze count to 1 if you start to see this problem -- which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that reanalysis of the table has to occur on every >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stuffing query. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd appreciate seeing the queries that are long-running in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your case so that I can see if that is what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountering or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Paul Boichat < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Karl, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're beginning to see issues with a document count > 10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million. At that point, even with good postgres vacuuming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the jobqueue table is starting to become a bottleneck. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example select count(*) from jobqueue, which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed when querying job status will do a full table scan of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jobqueue which has more than 10 million rows. That's going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to take some time in postgres. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SSDs will certainly make a big difference to document >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing through-put (which we see is largely I/O bound in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> postgres) but we are increasingly seeing long running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queries in the logs. Our current thinking is that we'll need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to refactor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JobQueue somewhat to optimise queries and, potentially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partition jobqueue into a subset of tables (table per >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queue for example). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VP Engineering, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exonar Ltd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T: +44 7940 567724 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> twitter:@exonarco @pboichat >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W: http://www.exonar.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing is secure. Now what? Exonar Raven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://video.exonar.com/> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exonar Limited, registered in the UK, registration number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06439969 at 14 West Mills, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5HG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments to it may be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confidential and are intended solely for the use of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual to whom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Exonar Ltd. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither take any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contact the sender if you believe you have received this email >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in error. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Karl Wright < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Baptiste, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ManifoldCF is not limited by the number of agents >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes or parallel connectors. Overall database >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limiting factor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would read this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://manifoldcf.apache.org/release/trunk/en_US/performance-tuning.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, there's a section in ManifoldCF (I believe Chapter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) that discusses this issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some five years ago, I successfully crawled 5 million web >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents, using Postgresql 8.3. Postgresql 9.x is faster, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and with modern >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SSD's, I expect that you will do even better. In general, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd say it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fine to shoot for 10M - 100M documents on ManifoldCF, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided that you use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a good database, and provided that you maintain it properly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Karl >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Baptiste Berthier < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to know what is the maximum number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents that you managed to crawl with ManifoldCF and with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connectors in parallel it could works ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your answer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baptiste >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
