The mailing list usually strips out attachments. You'll need to paste it
into the body of the email.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 7:16 AM Dominic Humphries <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Fair enough! See attached, if that doesn't work I'll send it inline...
>
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 18:40, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, seeing the final expanded query may shed light on where the time is
>> going, so voluminous output is good. Feel free to anonymize any customer
>> names or sensitive information with "<REDACTED>" or similar.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 12:21 PM Dominic Humphries
>> <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, sorry, not cloud, afaik it's single-sharded.
>> >
>> > Same query with facet fields removed takes just as long to run. Adding
>> the
>> > debug to the request generates a rather large amount of output, I
>> believe
>> > due to synonyms - I can send them if it's useful, but it's rather a lot?
>> >
>> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 15:37, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ok so that's 7M docs at 3k/doc... a relatively reasonable index (at
>> > least
>> > > if the hardware is reasonable, and you say it did work on 8.11 so
>> that's
>> > > probably fine).
>> > >
>> > > By your reply I assume it's single sharded and not using
>> cloud/zookeeper?
>> > >
>> > > The request you showed has a lot of facets on it. How much difference
>> > does
>> > > it make to the situation if you just send the query without the
>> facets?
>> > >
>> > > Also add &debug=query and send us the debug output from the header
>> when
>> > you
>> > > do that...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 9:31 AM Dominic Humphries
>> > > <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Sure:
>> > > > "index":{
>> > > > "numDocs":7349353,
>> > > > "maxDoc":7834951,
>> > > > "deletedDocs":485598,
>> > > > "segmentCount":31,
>> > > > "segmentsFileSizeInBytes":2727,
>> > > > "sizeInBytes":22066572844,
>> > > > "size":"20.55 GB"
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 13:27, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > This is interesting, can you give us a feel for the
>> size/structure of
>> > > the
>> > > > > index (# of documents, size of index, # of shards)?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 7:52 AM Dominic Humphries
>> > > > > <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > An update, I found the part of the query that's making
>> everything
>> > so
>> > > > > slow:
>> > > > > > the q param
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > When we have
>> > > > > > "q":"(carroll_county OR Aldi OR Cashier OR Kohls) AND NOT
>> > > > > (internship
>> > > > > > OR intern OR graduate)",
>> > > > > > the search is very slow, taking 20-something seconds
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > When it's just
>> > > > > > "q":"(carroll_county OR Aldi OR Cashier OR Kohls)",
>> > > > > > the search is blazing fast, coming back in under a second. So it
>> > > > appears
>> > > > > > it's something triggered by the NOT that's both taking all the
>> > time,
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > not getting caught by the timeAllowed limit
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Full query below:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> select?f.contract_type.facet.limit=2&fl=*&f.company_id.facet.mincount=1&qt=edismax&f.contract_time.facet.missing=false&f.location_struct.facet.limit=50&facet.date.end=NOW%2FDAY%2B1DAYS&ps=2&f.description.hl.snippets=2&stats.field=salary_avg_stats&facet.date.gap=%2B1DAY&pf=title&stats=true&_qtags=api_id%3Ab02dbf6d~784741%7CFCGI%3A%3AModel%3A%3AWWW%3A%3AJobsBase%3A%3ASearch%7C2781%7CCHOMkO6R7xGwlQ6bKp_SoQ&qs=5&f.contract_time.facet.limit=2&f.contract_time.facet.mincount=1&f.company_id.facet.missing=false&facet.date=%7B!key%3Dfreshness%7Dcreated&bq=(reply_on_adzuna%3Atrue%5E0.5)&f.contract_type.facet.mincount=1&wt=json&f.location_struct.facet.mincount=1&facet.date.hardend=true&f.category_id.facet.limit=50&timeAllowed=4900&f.contract_type.facet.missing=false&f.category_id.facet.mincount=1&sort=score+desc&q.alt=*%3A*&boost=boost_factor&f.company_id.facet.limit=50&facet.date.start=NOW%2FDAY-7DAYS&facet=false&facet.field=%7B!key%3Dlocation%3Aid%7Dlocation_struct&facet.field=%7B!key%3Dcategory%3Aid%7Dcategory_id&facet.field=contract_type&facet.field=contract_time&facet.field=%7B!key%3Dcompany%3Aid%7Dcompany_id&f.description.hl.fragsize=180&hl=false&rows=20&start=0&q=(carroll_county+OR+Aldi+OR+Cashier+OR+Kohls)+AND+NOT+(internship+OR+intern+OR+graduate)&fq=location_id%3A151946&fq=boosted%3A1&fq=%7B!cost%3D200%7Dsearch_category%3A0&fq=created%3A%5BNOW%2FDAY-14DAYS+TO+*%5D
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 17:00, Dominic Humphries <
>> domi...@adzuna.com
>> > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I spoke too soon, I figured out how to get VisualVM talking to
>> > > solr.
>> > > > > Now
>> > > > > > > I'm just not sure what to do with it - what sorts of things
>> am I
>> > > > > looking
>> > > > > > > for?
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 16:40, Dominic Humphries <
>> > domi...@adzuna.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >> Unfortunately I don't know Java anywhere near well enough to
>> > know
>> > > my
>> > > > > way
>> > > > > > >> around a profiler or jstack. I've confirmed JMX is enabled
>> and I
>> > > can
>> > > > > > telnet
>> > > > > > >> to the port, but VisualVM fails to connect and gives me no
>> > reason
>> > > as
>> > > > > to
>> > > > > > >> why.
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> I can post the query and result if that's useful - it doesn't
>> > > return
>> > > > > any
>> > > > > > >> records so there's nothing to censor
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 15:36, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > >>> If you have access to a test instance where the problem can
>> be
>> > > > > > >>> reproduced,
>> > > > > > >>> attaching a profiler would be one way. Another cruder
>> method is
>> > > to
>> > > > > use
>> > > > > > >>> jstack to dump all the threads.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> Another way to tackle this is to help us reproduce your
>> > problem.
>> > > > Can
>> > > > > > you
>> > > > > > >>> share details about your query? Obviously, please don't post
>> > > > anything
>> > > > > > >>> your
>> > > > > > >>> company wouldn't want public, but if you can share some
>> details
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > >>> would
>> > > > > > >>> be a start.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> The ideal thing would be to provide a minimum working
>> example
>> > of
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > >>> problem you are experiencing.
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 9:55 AM Dominic Humphries
>> > > > > > >>> <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid>
>> > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> > I've tried both timeAllowed and cpuAllowed and neither are
>> > > > > > restricting
>> > > > > > >>> the
>> > > > > > >>> > amount of time the queries take to run. I have a test
>> query
>> > > > that's
>> > > > > > >>> reliably
>> > > > > > >>> > taking 20-30 seconds, if there's any useful debug params
>> or
>> > > such
>> > > > I
>> > > > > > can
>> > > > > > >>> run
>> > > > > > >>> > to provide the information you want I'm happy to run them
>> -
>> > I'm
>> > > > not
>> > > > > > >>> sure
>> > > > > > >>> > how to usefully interrogate solr for where its time is
>> being
>> > > > spent,
>> > > > > > >>> sorry
>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > Thanks
>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 14:25, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >>> > > There are unit tests that seem to suggest that
>> timeAllowed
>> > > > still
>> > > > > > >>> works,
>> > > > > > >>> > can
>> > > > > > >>> > > you provide some more information about your use case?
>> > > > > Particularly
>> > > > > > >>> > > important is any information about where (what code)
>> your
>> > > > queries
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > >>> > > spending a lot of time in if you have it.
>> > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >>> > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 6:18 AM Dominic Humphries
>> > > > > > >>> > > <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid>
>> > > > > > >>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Hi folks,
>> > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > we're testing Solr 9.7 to upgrade our existing 8.11
>> > stack.
>> > > > > We're
>> > > > > > >>> > seeing a
>> > > > > > >>> > > > problem with long requests: we send `timeAllowed=4900`
>> > > which
>> > > > > > works
>> > > > > > >>> fine
>> > > > > > >>> > > on
>> > > > > > >>> > > > the existing 8.11 and keeps requests to just a few
>> > seconds.
>> > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > With 9.7, however, the flag is basically ignored -
>> > requests
>> > > > can
>> > > > > > >>> take
>> > > > > > >>> > over
>> > > > > > >>> > > > 30 seconds whether the flag is present or not, which
>> is
>> > > > causing
>> > > > > > >>> higher
>> > > > > > >>> > > CPU
>> > > > > > >>> > > > load and slowing response times.
>> > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > I've tried setting the flag suggested in
>> > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/latest/upgrade-notes/major-changes-in-solr-9.html#use-of-timeallowed
>> > > > > > >>> > > > - but even with solr.useExitableDirectoryReader set we
>> > > still
>> > > > > > don't
>> > > > > > >>> get
>> > > > > > >>> > > the
>> > > > > > >>> > > > desired behaviour.
>> > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Is there anything else I can try to get the old
>> behaviour
>> > > > back?
>> > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >>> > > > Thanks
>> > > > > > >>> > > >
>> > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >>> > > --
>> > > > > > >>> > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>> > > > > > >>> > > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book)
>> > > > > > >>> > >
>> > > > > > >>> >
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>> --
>> > > > > > >>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>> > > > > > >>> https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book)
>> > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>> > > > > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book)
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>> > > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book)
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>> https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book)
>>
>
--
http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book)
