Yonik: Yes, but correlating these is a bit awkward. My notion is it would be useful to have this in a debug response and avoid having to reconcile things from log files.... Perhaps Shawn's idea would be a good thing to put in a (new?) debug section rather than re-purpose the QTime which we all know and love.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Otis Gospodnetic <[email protected]> wrote: > This sounds attractive to me. What other times are you thinking about, Shawn? > > I think this type of info should be owned by Solr and one should not > rely on Jetty. Plus the plan is to ditch the servlet container > anyway. > > Otis > -- > Solr Performance Monitoring -- http://sematext.com/spm > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Shawn Heisey <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 7/10/2013 2:46 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: >>> >>> I've been waving my hands for a while with "QTime is just the query >>> time, it doesn't count network latency, assembling the response blah >>> blah blah". >>> >>> It seems like we could at least provide the time it takes to write out >>> the docs that would include decompression time, disk latency, all that >>> stuff. Still wouldn't deal with network latency, but it'd be progress. >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >>> Does this seem do-able? What about valuable? I'm assuming that just >>> _adding_ a section wouldn't break back-compat. What do people think? >>> Should I raise a JIRA? >> >> >> +1 on raising a JIRA. Here's my radical notion: >> >> IMHO we should add all available timing information up and display that as >> QTime. Having that QTime further broken down into additional information >> would be very good. Any simple calculations (which shouldn't really slow >> down a request) should be included by default, and any calculations that do >> slow things down could be part of debugQuery output. >> >> My preference would be to make these changes in branch_4x, but if we do >> that, we'll suddenly be dealing with people who think that a minor version >> upgrade has incredibly worse performance just based on QTime numbers, even >> though nothing has really changed. >> >> If we just make the additional information available in 4.x and then update >> QTime to include everything in 5.0, that seems like a reasonable path. It's >> easier to manage expectations on a major version bump. >> >> Thanks, >> Shawn >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
