>>>until we fix Lucene to run a single search concurrently (which we >>>badly need to do). > I am interested in this idea.(I have posted it before) do you have some > resources such as papers or tech articles about it? > I have tried but it need to modify index format dramatically and we use > solr distributed search to relieve the problem of response time. so finally > give it up. > lucene4's index format is more flexible that it supports customed codecs > and it's now on development, I think it's good time to take it into > consideration > that let it support multithread searching for a single query. > I have a naive solution. dividing docList into many groups > e.g grouping docIds by it's even or odd > term1 df1=4 docList = 0 4 8 10 > term1 df2=4 docList = 1 3 9 11 > > term2 df1=4 docList = 0 6 8 12 > term2 df2=4 docList = 3 9 11 15 > then we can use 2 threads to search topN docs on even group and odd group > and finally merge their results into a single on just like solr > distributed search. > But it's better than solr distributed search. > First, it's in a single process and data communication between > threads is much > faster than network. > Second, each threads process the same number of documents.For solr > distributed > search, one shard may process 7 documents and another shard may 1 document > Even if we can make each shard have the same document number. we can not > make it uniformly for each term. > e.g. shard1 has doc1 doc2 > shard2 has doc3 doc4 > but term1 may only occur in doc1 and doc2 > while term2 may only occur in doc3 and doc4 > we may modify it > shard1 doc1 doc3 > shard2 doc2 doc4 > it's good for term1 and term2 > but term3 may occur in doc1 and doc3... > So I think it's fine-grained distributed in index while solr > distributed search is coarse- > grained. This is just crazy :)
The simple way is just to search different segments in parallel. BalancedSegmentMergePolicy makes sure you have roughly even-sized large segments (and small ones don't count, they're small!). If you're bound on squeezing out that extra millisecond (and making your life miserable along the way), you can search a single segment with multiple threads (by dividing it in even chunks, and then doing skipTo to position your iterators to the beginning of each chunk). First approach is really easy to implement. Second one is harder, but still doesn't require you to cook the number of CPU cores available into your index! It's the law of diminishing returns at play here. You're most likely to search in parallel over mostly memory-resident index (RAMDir/mmap/filesys cache - doesn't matter), as most of IO subsystems tend to slow down considerably on parallel sequential reads, so you already have pretty decent speed. Searching different segments in parallel (with BSMP) makes you several times faster. Searching in parallel within a segment requires some weird hacks, but has maybe a few percent advantage over previous solution. Sharding posting lists requires a great deal of weird hacks, makes index machine-bound, and boosts speed by another couple of percent. Sounds worthless. -- Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко (ear...@gmail.com) Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4 ICQ: 104465785 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
