I'm confused, since warming should not be counted in the timings. Are you saying that the recall was affected??
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 6:12 PM Julie Tibshirani <juliet...@gmail.com> wrote: > Using the ann-benchmarks framework, I still saw a similar regression as > Mayya between 9.3 and 9.4. I investigated and found it was due to > "KnnGraphTester to use KnnVectorQuery" ( > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/796), specifically the change to > the warm-up strategy. If I revert it, the results look exactly as expected. > > I guess we can keep an eye on the nightly benchmarks tomorrow to > double-check there's no drop. It would also be nice to formalize the > ann-benchmarks set-up and run it regularly (like we've discussed in > https://github.com/apache/lucene/issues/10665). > > Julie > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:33 AM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks for your speedy testing! I am observing comparable latencies *when >> the index geometry (ie number of segments)* is unchanged. Agree we can >> leave this for a later day. I'll proceed to cut 9.4 artifacts >> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:02 AM Mayya Sharipova >> <mayya.sharip...@elastic.co.invalid> wrote: >> >>> It would be great if you all are able to test again with >>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11781/ applied >>> >>> >>> >>> I ran the ann benchmarks with this change, and was happy to confirm >>> that in my test recall with this PR is the same as in 9.3 branch, although >>> QPS is lower, but we can investigate QPSs later. >>> >>> glove-100-angular M:16 efConstruction:100 >>> 9.3 recall9.3 QPSthis PR recallthis PR QPS >>> n_cands=10 0.620 2745.933 0.620 1675.500 >>> n_cands=20 0.680 2288.665 0.680 1512.744 >>> n_cands=40 0.746 1770.243 0.746 1040.240 >>> n_cands=80 0.809 1226.738 0.809 695.236 >>> n_cands=120 0.843 948.908 0.843 525.914 >>> n_cands=200 0.878 671.781 0.878 351.529 >>> n_cands=400 0.918 392.265 0.918 207.854 >>> n_cands=600 0.937 282.403 0.937 144.311 >>> n_cands=800 0.949 214.620 0.949 116.875 >>> >>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 6:25 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> OK, I think I was wrong about latency having increased due to a change >>>> in KnnGraphTester -- I did some testing there and couldn't reproduce. >>>> There does seem to be a slight vector search latency increase, >>>> possibly noise, but maybe due to the branching introduced to check >>>> whether to do byte vs float operations? It would be a little >>>> surprising if that were the case given the small number of branchings >>>> compared to the number of multiplies in dot-product though. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 3:25 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Thanks for the deep-dive Julie. I was able to reproduce the changing >>>> > recall. I had introduced some bugs in the diversity checks (that may >>>> > have partially canceled each other out? it's hard to understand what >>>> > was happening in the buggy case) and posted a fix today >>>> > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11781. >>>> > >>>> > There are a couple of other outstanding issues I found while doing a >>>> > bunch of git bisecting; >>>> > >>>> > I think we might have introduced a (test-only) performance regression >>>> > in KnnGraphTester >>>> > >>>> > We may still be over-allocating the size of NeighborArray, leading to >>>> > excessive segmentation? I wonder if we could avoid dynamic >>>> > re-allocation there, and simply initialize every neighbor array to >>>> > 2*M+1. >>>> > >>>> > While I don't think these are necessarily blockers, given that we are >>>> > releasing HNSW improvements, it seems like we should address these, >>>> > especially as the build-graph-on-index is one of the things we are >>>> > releasing, and it is (may be?) impacted. I will see if I can put up a >>>> > patch or two. >>>> > >>>> > It would be great if you all are able to test again with >>>> > https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11781/ applied >>>> > >>>> > -Mike >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:07 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > Thank you Mike, I just backported the change. >>>> > > >>>> > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 6:32 PM Michael Sokolov <msoko...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >> >>>> > >> it looks like a small bug fix, we have had on main (and 9.x?) for a >>>> > >> while now and no test failures showed up, I guess. Should be OK to >>>> > >> port. I plan to cut artifacts this weekend, or Monday at the >>>> latest, >>>> > >> but if you can do the backport today or tomorrow, that's fine by >>>> me. >>>> > >> >>>> > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 10:55 AM Adrien Grand <jpou...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > Mike, I'm tempted to backport >>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/1068 to branch_9_4, which is a >>>> bugfix that looks pretty safe to me. What do you think? >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 4:11 PM Mayya Sharipova < >>>> mayya.sharip...@elastic.co.invalid> wrote: >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> Thanks for running more tests, Michael. >>>> > >> >> It is encouraging that you saw a similar performance between >>>> 9.3 and 9.4. I will also run more tests with different parameters. >>>> > >> >> >>>> > >> >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 9:30 AM Michael Sokolov < >>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> As a follow-up, I ran a test using the same parameters as >>>> above, only >>>> > >> >>> changing M=200 to M=16. This did result in a single segment in >>>> both >>>> > >> >>> cases (9.3, 9.4) and the performance was pretty similar; >>>> within noise >>>> > >> >>> I think. The main difference I saw was that the 9.3 index was >>>> written >>>> > >> >>> using CFS: >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> 9.4: >>>> > >> >>> recall latency nDoc fanout maxConn beamWidth >>>> visited index ms >>>> > >> >>> 0.755 1.36 1000000 100 16 100 200 >>>> 891402 1.00 >>>> > >> >>> post-filter >>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 382M Sep 13 13:06 >>>> > >> >>> _0_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vec >>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 262K Sep 13 13:06 >>>> > >> >>> _0_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vem >>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 131M Sep 13 13:06 >>>> > >> >>> _0_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vex >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> 9.3: >>>> > >> >>> recall latency nDoc fanout maxConn beamWidth >>>> visited index ms >>>> > >> >>> 0.775 1.34 1000000 100 16 100 4033 977043 >>>> > >> >>> rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 297 Sep 13 13:26 _0.cfe >>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 516M Sep 13 13:26 _0.cfs >>>> > >> >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 sokolovm amazon 340 Sep 13 13:26 _0.si >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 8:50 AM Michael Sokolov < >>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> > I ran another test. I thought I had increased the RAM buffer >>>> size to >>>> > >> >>> > 8G and heap to 16G. However I still see two segments in the >>>> index that >>>> > >> >>> > was created. And looking at the infostream I see: >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> > dir=MMapDirectory@ >>>> /local/home/sokolovm/workspace/knn-perf/glove-100-angular.hdf5-train-200-200.index >>>> > >> >>> > lockFactory=org\ >>>> > >> >>> > .apache.lucene.store.NativeFSLockFactory@4466af20 >>>> > >> >>> > index= >>>> > >> >>> > version=9.4.0 >>>> > >> >>> > analyzer=org.apache.lucene.analysis.standard.StandardAnalyzer >>>> > >> >>> > ramBufferSizeMB=8000.0 >>>> > >> >>> > maxBufferedDocs=-1 >>>> > >> >>> > ... >>>> > >> >>> > perThreadHardLimitMB=1945 >>>> > >> >>> > ... >>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:53.329404950Z; main]: flush >>>> postings as >>>> > >> >>> > segment _6 numDocs=555373 >>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:53.330671171Z; main]: 0 msec to write >>>> norms >>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:53.331113184Z; main]: 0 msec to write >>>> docValues >>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:53.331320146Z; main]: 0 msec to write >>>> points >>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.424195657Z; main]: 3092 msec to >>>> write vectors >>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.429239944Z; main]: 4 msec to >>>> finish stored fields >>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.429593512Z; main]: 0 msec to write >>>> postings >>>> > >> >>> > and finish vectors >>>> > >> >>> > IW 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.430309031Z; main]: 0 msec to write >>>> fieldInfos >>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.431721622Z; main]: new segment >>>> has 0 deleted docs >>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.431921144Z; main]: new segment >>>> has 0 >>>> > >> >>> > soft-deleted docs >>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.435738086Z; main]: new segment >>>> has no >>>> > >> >>> > vectors; no norms; no docValues; no prox; freqs >>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.435952356Z; main]: >>>> > >> >>> > flushedFiles=[_6_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vec, _6.fdm, >>>> _6.fdt, _6_\ >>>> > >> >>> > Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vem, _6.fnm, _6.fdx, >>>> > >> >>> > _6_Lucene94HnswVectorsFormat_0.vex] >>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.436121861Z; main]: flushed >>>> codec=Lucene94 >>>> > >> >>> > DWPT 0 [2022-09-13T02:42:56.437691468Z; main]: flushed: >>>> segment=_6 >>>> > >> >>> > ramUsed=1,945.002 MB newFlushedSize=1,065.701 MB \ >>>> > >> >>> > docs/MB=521.134 >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> > so I think it's this perThreadHardLimit that is triggering >>>> the >>>> > >> >>> > flushes? TBH this isn't something I had seen before; but the >>>> docs say: >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> > /** >>>> > >> >>> > * Expert: Sets the maximum memory consumption per thread >>>> triggering >>>> > >> >>> > a forced flush if exceeded. A >>>> > >> >>> > * {@link DocumentsWriterPerThread} is forcefully flushed >>>> once it >>>> > >> >>> > exceeds this limit even if the >>>> > >> >>> > * {@link #getRAMBufferSizeMB()} has not been exceeded. >>>> This is a >>>> > >> >>> > safety limit to prevent a {@link >>>> > >> >>> > * DocumentsWriterPerThread} from address space exhaustion >>>> due to >>>> > >> >>> > its internal 32 bit signed >>>> > >> >>> > * integer based memory addressing. The given value must >>>> be less >>>> > >> >>> > that 2GB (2048MB) >>>> > >> >>> > * >>>> > >> >>> > * @see #DEFAULT_RAM_PER_THREAD_HARD_LIMIT_MB >>>> > >> >>> > */ >>>> > >> >>> > >>>> > >> >>> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 6:28 PM Michael Sokolov < >>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > Hi Mayya, thanks for persisting - I think we need to >>>> wrestle this to >>>> > >> >>> > > the ground for sure. In the test I ran, RAM buffer was the >>>> default >>>> > >> >>> > > checked in, which is weirdly: 1994MB. I did not >>>> specifically set heap >>>> > >> >>> > > size. I used maxConn/M=200. I'll try with larger buffer >>>> to see if I >>>> > >> >>> > > can get 9.4 to produce a single segment for the same test >>>> settings. I >>>> > >> >>> > > see you used a much smaller M (16), which should have >>>> produced quite >>>> > >> >>> > > small graphs, and I agree, should have been a single >>>> segment. Were you >>>> > >> >>> > > able to verify the number of segments? >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > Agree that decrease in recall is not expected when more >>>> segments are produced. >>>> > >> >>> > > >>>> > >> >>> > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 1:51 PM Mayya Sharipova >>>> > >> >>> > > <mayya.sharip...@elastic.co.invalid> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > Hello Michael, >>>> > >> >>> > > > Thanks for checking. >>>> > >> >>> > > > Sorry for bringing this up again. >>>> > >> >>> > > > First of all, I am ok with proceeding with the Lucene >>>> 9.4 release and leaving the performance investigations for later. >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > I am interested in what's the maxConn/M value you used >>>> for your tests? What was the heap memory and the size of the RAM buffer for >>>> indexing? >>>> > >> >>> > > > Usually, when we have multiple segments, recall should >>>> increase, not decrease. But I agree that with multiple segments we can see >>>> a big drop in QPS. >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > Here is my investigation with detailed output of the >>>> performance difference between 9.3 and 9.4 releases. In my tests I used a >>>> large indexing buffer (2Gb) and large heap (5Gb) to end up with a single >>>> segment for both 9.3 and 9.4 tests, but still see a big drop in QPS in 9.4. >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > Thank you. >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > >>>> > >> >>> > > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 12:21 PM Alan Woodward < >>>> romseyg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> Done. Thanks! >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > On 9 Sep 2022, at 16:32, Michael Sokolov < >>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > Hi Alan - I checked out the interval queries patch; >>>> seems pretty safe, >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > please go ahead and port to 9.4. Thanks! >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > Mike >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 10:41 AM Alan Woodward < >>>> romseyg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> Hi Mike, >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> I’ve opened >>>> https://github.com/apache/lucene/pull/11760 as a small bug fix PR for >>>> a problem with interval queries. Am I OK to port this to the 9.4 branch? >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> Thanks, Alan >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> On 2 Sep 2022, at 20:42, Michael Sokolov < >>>> msoko...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> NOTICE: >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> Branch branch_9_4 has been cut and versions updated >>>> to 9.5 on stable branch. >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> Please observe the normal rules: >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * No new features may be committed to the branch. >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * Documentation patches, build patches and serious >>>> bug fixes may be >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> committed to the branch. However, you should submit >>>> all patches you >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> want to commit to Jira first to give others the >>>> chance to review >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> and possibly vote against the patch. Keep in mind >>>> that it is our >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> main intention to keep the branch as stable as >>>> possible. >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * All patches that are intended for the branch >>>> should first be committed >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> to the unstable branch, merged into the stable >>>> branch, and then into >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> the current release branch. >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * Normal unstable and stable branch development may >>>> continue as usual. >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> However, if you plan to commit a big change to the >>>> unstable branch >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> while the branch feature freeze is in effect, think >>>> twice: can't the >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> addition wait a couple more days? Merges of bug >>>> fixes into the branch >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> may become more difficult. >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> * Only Jira issues with Fix version 9.4 and priority >>>> "Blocker" will delay >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> a release candidate build. >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>> dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>> dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>> dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: >>>> dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> >>> > > >> > >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > >> >>> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>>> dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> >>> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: >>>> dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> >>> > > >> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> >>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> >>> >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> > >> > -- >>>> > >> > Adrien >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>> > >> >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > -- >>>> > > Adrien >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >>>> >>>>
