Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
I will run some queries today, both with lazyfield loading on and off (for the 2010 build we're using and the 2012 build we're using) and get you some of the debug data. On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Yonik Seeley-2-2 [via Lucene] ml-node+s472066n318...@n3.nabble.com wrote: On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Erick Erickson [hidden email]http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=318i=0 wrote: Would you hypothesize that lazy field loading could be that much slower if a large fraction of fields were selected? If you actually use the lazy field later, it will cause an extra read for each field. If you don't have enough free RAM for the OS to cache the entire index it could be even worse... the first time reading the document you take a hit from a real disk seek, then when you go and access those fields (assuming they have already been evicted from the OS cache) you take the hit of another disk seek. Those could really add up. So if we're actually seeing much worse performance for lazy loading now than in the past, one guess would be it's due to that scenario in conjunction with something that is actually accessing the lazy fields. -Yonik lucenerevolution.com - Lucene/Solr Open Source Search Conference. Boston May 7-10 -- If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p318.html To unsubscribe from Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help, click herehttp://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_codenode=3767015code=bmFwdG93bmRldmd1eUBnbWFpbC5jb218Mzc2NzAxNXwtMTgwOTkwNzM4Ng== . NAMLhttp://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewerid=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.namlbase=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespacebreadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3780843.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
I've run some test on both the versions of Solr we are testing... one is the 2010.12.10 build and the other is the 2012.02.16 build. The latter one is where we were initially seeing poor response performance. I've attached 4 text files which have the results of a few runs against each of the builds with and without LazyFieldLoading enabled (plus some on the later build with wildcard fl parameters enabled). From what I see, the timings don't seem to be too telling (but not really knowing the ins and outs of it you may see something different). Where we see the hit/performance is on the response time getting the information back. Hopefully this helps some. http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/file/n3780995/2010-12-10build_lazyfieldloading_false.txt 2010-12-10build_lazyfieldloading_false.txt http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/file/n3780995/2010-12-10build_lazyfieldloading_true.txt 2010-12-10build_lazyfieldloading_true.txt http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/file/n3780995/2012-02-16build_lazyfieldloading_false.txt 2012-02-16build_lazyfieldloading_false.txt http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/file/n3780995/2012-02-16build_lazyfieldloading_true.txt 2012-02-16build_lazyfieldloading_true.txt -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3780995.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
Thanks again. We're trying to get our ops team to install jconsole for us so we can take a look at the GC stuff. Your comment about the documentcache is intriguing for sure. We just ran a couple of test against the older 4.x build we have (that's been returning quicker) and the newer in that we just bring back the top 20 records with the highest largest 'payload', then reverse it to bring back the top 20 with the lowest payload. The highest payload was 16.3MB. The previous version of solr had a qtime of 507 ms (in it's initial run) and the overall time to client was 2.6 seconds. The newer build we have with the same payload had a qtime of 593ms but the overall time to receive was 28.2 seconds. When we did the reverse (small payload) of 37K, both instances had a qtime measure at 1ms but the older version returned in 126 ms and the new version returned in 192 ms. I reran the tests (realizing some things may have been warmed or cached). The large payload test yielded nearly exactly the same results where as the small payload showed the older version returning in 11ms and the newer version returning in 6ms. I was told that solr was re-indexed as you mentioned since things changed. So I'm going to see what I can learn about the documentCache because perhaps there is something different between versions. Our current config for that is as follows: documentCache class=*solr.LRUCache* size=*15000* initialSize=*15000*autowarmCount =*0* / It's the same for both instances And lazyfieldloading is enabled for both instances Thanks, Brian On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Erick Erickson [via Lucene] ml-node+s472066n377156...@n3.nabble.com wrote: It's still worth looking at the GC characteristics, there's a possibility that the newer build uses memory such that you're tripping over some threshold, but that's grasping at straws. I'd at least hook up jConsole for a sanity check... But if your QTimes are fast, the next thing that comes to mind is that you're spending (for some reason I can't name) more time gathering your fields off disk. Which, with 1,200 records is a possibility. Again, the why is a mystery. But you can do some triage by returning just a few fields to see if that's the issue. Wild stab: Did you re-index the data for your new version of Solr? The index format changed not too long ago, so it's at least possible. But why that would slow things down so much is another mystery but it's worth testing. Another wild bit would be your documentCache. Is it sized large enough? As I remember, the figure is (max docs returned) * (possible number of simultaneous requests), see: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCaching#documentCache Is there any chance that enableLazyFieldLoading is false in solrconfig.xml? That could account for it. But I'm afraid it's a matter of trying to remove stuff from your process until something changes because this is pretty surprising... Best Erick On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM, naptowndev [hidden email]http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=3771562i=0 wrote: Erick - Thanks. We've actually worked with Sematext to optimize the GC settings and saw initial (and continued) performance boosts as a result... The situation we're seeing now, has both versions of Solr running on the same box under the same JVM, but we are undeploying an instance at a time so as to prevent any outlying performance hits in the tests... So, that being said, both instances of solr, on the same box are running under the optimized settings. I'd assume if GC was impacting the results of the newer version of Solr, we'd see similar decrease in performance on the older version. Aside from the QTime and other timings (highlight, etc) - which are all faster in the new version, the overall response time/delivery of the results are significantly slower under the new version. I've unfortunately exhausted my knowledge of Solr and what may or may not have changed between the nightly builds. I do appreciate your insight and hope you'll continue to throw out some ideas...and maybe someone else out there has seen these inconsistencies as well. The last set of test I ran consistently showed the the older build of Solr bringing back a result set of 13.1MB with 1200 records in 2.3 seconds wheres the newer build was bringing back the same result set in about 17.4 seconds. The catch is that the qtime and highlighting component time in the newer version are faster than the older version. Again, if you have any more ideas, let me know. Thanks! Brian On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Erick Erickson [via Lucene] [hidden email] http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=3771562i=1 wrote: Ah, no, my mistake. The wildcards for the fl list won't matter re: maxBooleanClauses, I didn't read carefully enough. I assume that just returning a field or two doesn't slow down But one possible culprit
Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
Yonik - Thanks, we'll give that a try (re: lazyfieldlaoding). and no, the * is not in our config...that must have come over from pasting it in from the file. Odd. Another question I have is regarding solr.LRUCache vs. solr.FastLRUCache. Would there be reason to implement (or not implement) fastLRU on the documentcache? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773015.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
I'm not sure what would constitute a low vs. high hit rate (and eviction rate), so we've kept the setting at LRUCache instead of FastCache for now. But I will say we did turn the LazyFieldLoading option off and wow - a huge increase in performance on the newer nightly build we are using (the one from Feb 2, 2012). The payload of 13.7 MB that was taking from anywhere around 15-17 seconds (with fastvectorhighlighter on) and 33+ seconds with FVH off is now taking just about 3.2 seconds with FVH on. When we implement the wildcards for the fieldlist, thereby reducing the payload down to 1.9MB, our average return time is around 875ms, down from anywhere around 6-8 seconds before. Granted, I've only run about 20 tests (manually) at this point, so I'm going to keep hitting at the server for a while with different queries to see if anything gives, but at least at this point, it does appear setting the lazyfieldloading to false has improved performance. It'd be ideal to figure out why that's the case, but that's a little beyond my skill set at the moment. I'll let you guys know how results look as I proceed throughout the day. (I've yet to run these tests against the 2010 build we were comparing against - so I need to do that too) Please also let me know if you have any further suggestions. Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773310.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
Erick - That is exactly what we are seeing. this is in our solrconfig.xml: enableLazyFieldLoadingfalse/enableLazyFieldLoading and our response times have decreased drastically. I'm on my 40th-ish test today and the response times are still 10+ seconds faster on the higher payload than they were when it was set to true. Smaller payloads are also about 2.5 seconds faster. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Erick Erickson [via Lucene] ml-node+s472066n377336...@n3.nabble.com wrote: Let me echo this back to see if I have it right, because it's *extremely* weird if I'm reading it correctly. In your solrconfig.xml file, you changed this line: enableLazyFieldLoadingtrue/enableLazyFieldLoading to this: enableLazyFieldLoadingfalse/enableLazyFieldLoading and your response time DECREASED? If you can confirm that I'm reading it right, I'll open up a JIRA. Best Erick On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM, naptowndev [hidden email]http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=3773362i=0 wrote: I'm not sure what would constitute a low vs. high hit rate (and eviction rate), so we've kept the setting at LRUCache instead of FastCache for now. But I will say we did turn the LazyFieldLoading option off and wow - a huge increase in performance on the newer nightly build we are using (the one from Feb 2, 2012). The payload of 13.7 MB that was taking from anywhere around 15-17 seconds (with fastvectorhighlighter on) and 33+ seconds with FVH off is now taking just about 3.2 seconds with FVH on. When we implement the wildcards for the fieldlist, thereby reducing the payload down to 1.9MB, our average return time is around 875ms, down from anywhere around 6-8 seconds before. Granted, I've only run about 20 tests (manually) at this point, so I'm going to keep hitting at the server for a while with different queries to see if anything gives, but at least at this point, it does appear setting the lazyfieldloading to false has improved performance. It'd be ideal to figure out why that's the case, but that's a little beyond my skill set at the moment. I'll let you guys know how results look as I proceed throughout the day. (I've yet to run these tests against the 2010 build we were comparing against - so I need to do that too) Please also let me know if you have any further suggestions. Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773310.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773362.html To unsubscribe from Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help, click herehttp://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_codenode=3767015code=bmFwdG93bmRldmd1eUBnbWFpbC5jb218Mzc2NzAxNXwtMTgwOTkwNzM4Ng== . NAMLhttp://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewerid=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.namlbase=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespacebreadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773537.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
Obviously it'd be great if someone else was able to confirm this in their setup as well. But with different environments, payload sizes, etc., I'm not sure how easily it can be tested in other environments. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Brian G naptowndev...@gmail.com wrote: Erick - That is exactly what we are seeing. this is in our solrconfig.xml: enableLazyFieldLoadingfalse/enableLazyFieldLoading and our response times have decreased drastically. I'm on my 40th-ish test today and the response times are still 10+ seconds faster on the higher payload than they were when it was set to true. Smaller payloads are also about 2.5 seconds faster. On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Erick Erickson [via Lucene] ml-node+s472066n377336...@n3.nabble.com wrote: Let me echo this back to see if I have it right, because it's *extremely* weird if I'm reading it correctly. In your solrconfig.xml file, you changed this line: enableLazyFieldLoadingtrue/enableLazyFieldLoading to this: enableLazyFieldLoadingfalse/enableLazyFieldLoading and your response time DECREASED? If you can confirm that I'm reading it right, I'll open up a JIRA. Best Erick On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:14 PM, naptowndev [hidden email]http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=3773362i=0 wrote: I'm not sure what would constitute a low vs. high hit rate (and eviction rate), so we've kept the setting at LRUCache instead of FastCache for now. But I will say we did turn the LazyFieldLoading option off and wow - a huge increase in performance on the newer nightly build we are using (the one from Feb 2, 2012). The payload of 13.7 MB that was taking from anywhere around 15-17 seconds (with fastvectorhighlighter on) and 33+ seconds with FVH off is now taking just about 3.2 seconds with FVH on. When we implement the wildcards for the fieldlist, thereby reducing the payload down to 1.9MB, our average return time is around 875ms, down from anywhere around 6-8 seconds before. Granted, I've only run about 20 tests (manually) at this point, so I'm going to keep hitting at the server for a while with different queries to see if anything gives, but at least at this point, it does appear setting the lazyfieldloading to false has improved performance. It'd be ideal to figure out why that's the case, but that's a little beyond my skill set at the moment. I'll let you guys know how results look as I proceed throughout the day. (I've yet to run these tests against the 2010 build we were comparing against - so I need to do that too) Please also let me know if you have any further suggestions. Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773310.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773362.html To unsubscribe from Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help, click herehttp://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_codenode=3767015code=bmFwdG93bmRldmd1eUBnbWFpbC5jb218Mzc2NzAxNXwtMTgwOTkwNzM4Ng== . NAMLhttp://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewerid=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.namlbase=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespacebreadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3773540.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
Erick - Agreed, it is puzzling. What I've found is that it doesn't matter if I pass in wildcards for the field list or not...but that the overall response time from the newer builds of Solr that we've tested (e.g. 4.0.0.2012.02.16) is slower than the older (4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56) build. If I run the exact same query against those two cores, bringing back a payload of just over 13MB (xml), the older build brings it back in about 1.6 seconds and the newer build brings it back in about 8.4 seconds. Implementing the field list wildcard allows us to reduce the payload in the newer build (not an option in the older build). They payload is reduced to 1.8MB but takes over 3.5 seconds to come back as compared to the full payload (13MB) in the older build at about 1.6 seconds. With everything else remaining the same (machine/processors/memory/network and the code base calling Solr) it seems to point to something in the newer builds that's causing the slowdown, but I'm not intimate enough with Solr to be able to figure that out. We are using the debugQuery=on in our test to see timings and they aren't showing any anomalies, so that makes it even more confusing. From a wildcard perspective, it's on the fl parameter... here's a 'snippet' of part of our fl parameter for the query fl=id, CategoryGroupTypeID, MedicalSpecialtyDescription, TermsMisspelled, DictionarySource, timestamp, Category_*_MemberReports, Category_*_MemberReportRange, Category_*_NonMemberReports, Category_*_Grade, Category_*_GradeDisplay, Category_*_GradeTier, Category_*_ReportLocations, Category_*_ReportLocationCoordinates, Category_*_coordinate, score Please note that that fl param is greatly reduced from our full query, we have over 100 static files and a slew of dynamic fields - but that should give you an idea of how we are using wildcards. I'm not sure about the maxBooleanClauses...not being all that familiar with Solr, does that apply to wildcards used in the fl list? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3769995.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
Erick - Thanks. We've actually worked with Sematext to optimize the GC settings and saw initial (and continued) performance boosts as a result... The situation we're seeing now, has both versions of Solr running on the same box under the same JVM, but we are undeploying an instance at a time so as to prevent any outlying performance hits in the tests... So, that being said, both instances of solr, on the same box are running under the optimized settings. I'd assume if GC was impacting the results of the newer version of Solr, we'd see similar decrease in performance on the older version. Aside from the QTime and other timings (highlight, etc) - which are all faster in the new version, the overall response time/delivery of the results are significantly slower under the new version. I've unfortunately exhausted my knowledge of Solr and what may or may not have changed between the nightly builds. I do appreciate your insight and hope you'll continue to throw out some ideas...and maybe someone else out there has seen these inconsistencies as well. The last set of test I ran consistently showed the the older build of Solr bringing back a result set of 13.1MB with 1200 records in 2.3 seconds wheres the newer build was bringing back the same result set in about 17.4 seconds. The catch is that the qtime and highlighting component time in the newer version are faster than the older version. Again, if you have any more ideas, let me know. Thanks! Brian On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Erick Erickson [via Lucene] ml-node+s472066n377030...@n3.nabble.com wrote: Ah, no, my mistake. The wildcards for the fl list won't matter re: maxBooleanClauses, I didn't read carefully enough. I assume that just returning a field or two doesn't slow down But one possible culprit, especially since you say this kicks in after a while, is garbage collection. Here's an excellent intro: http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2011/03/27/garbage-collection-bootcamp-1-0/ Especially look at the getting a view into garbage collection section and try specifying those options. The result should be that your solr log gets stats dumped every time GC kicks in. If this is a problem, look at the times in the logfile after your system slows down. You'll see a bunch of GC dumps that collect very little unused memory. You can also connect to the process using jConsole (should be in the Java distro) and watch the memory tab, especially after your server has slowed down. You can also connect jConsole remotely... This is just an experiment, but any time I see and it slows down after ### minutes, GC is the first thing I think of. Best Erick On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:16 AM, naptowndev [hidden email]http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=3770307i=0 wrote: Erick - Agreed, it is puzzling. What I've found is that it doesn't matter if I pass in wildcards for the field list or not...but that the overall response time from the newer builds of Solr that we've tested (e.g. 4.0.0.2012.02.16) is slower than the older (4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56) build. If I run the exact same query against those two cores, bringing back a payload of just over 13MB (xml), the older build brings it back in about 1.6 seconds and the newer build brings it back in about 8.4 seconds. Implementing the field list wildcard allows us to reduce the payload in the newer build (not an option in the older build). They payload is reduced to 1.8MB but takes over 3.5 seconds to come back as compared to the full payload (13MB) in the older build at about 1.6 seconds. With everything else remaining the same (machine/processors/memory/network and the code base calling Solr) it seems to point to something in the newer builds that's causing the slowdown, but I'm not intimate enough with Solr to be able to figure that out. We are using the debugQuery=on in our test to see timings and they aren't showing any anomalies, so that makes it even more confusing. From a wildcard perspective, it's on the fl parameter... here's a 'snippet' of part of our fl parameter for the query fl=id, CategoryGroupTypeID, MedicalSpecialtyDescription, TermsMisspelled, DictionarySource, timestamp, Category_*_MemberReports, Category_*_MemberReportRange, Category_*_NonMemberReports, Category_*_Grade, Category_*_GradeDisplay, Category_*_GradeTier, Category_*_ReportLocations, Category_*_ReportLocationCoordinates, Category_*_coordinate, score Please note that that fl param is greatly reduced from our full query, we have over 100 static files and a slew of dynamic fields - but that should give you an idea of how we are using wildcards. I'm not sure about the maxBooleanClauses...not being all that familiar with Solr, does that apply to wildcards used in the fl list? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement
Backporting Wildcard fieldlist Features to 3.x versions
We are currently running tests against some of the more recent nightly builds of Solr 4, but have noticed some significant performance decreases recently. Some of the reasons we are using Solr 4 is because we needed geofiltering and highlighting which were not originally available in 3 from my understanding It appears however, that those features have been backported to 3.x. One other feature that we are very interested in because we have very large payloads returning in our search is the wildcard field list for return fields. We've seen it work in the later builds of 4.x, but again, the gain we are getting from the smaller payload by leaving out some fields (out of hundreds), is negated by some poor performance on the response times. Are there any plans to backport the wildcard fieldlist feature to 3.x? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Backporting-Wildcard-fieldlist-Features-to-3-x-versions-tp3770953p3770953.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
As I've mentioned before, I'm very new to Solr. I'm not a Java guy or an Apache guy. I'm a .Net guy. We have a rather large schema - some 100 + fields plus a large number of dynamic fields. We've been trying to improve performance and finally got around to implementing fastvectorhighlighting which gave us an immediate improvement on the qtime (nearly 70%) which also improved the overall response time by over 20%. With that, we also bring back an extraordinarly large amount of data in the XML. Some results (20 records) come back with a payload between 3MB and even 17MB. We have a lot of report text that is used for searching and highlighting. We recently implemented field list wildcards on two versions of Solr to test it out. This allowed us to leave the report text off the return and decreased the payload significantly - by nearly 85% in the large cases... SO, we'd expect a performance boost there, however we are seeing greatly increased response times on these builds of Solr even though the qtime is incredibly fast. To put it in perspective - our original Solr core is 4.0, I believe the 4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56 version. On our test boxes, we have one running 4.0.0.2011.11.17 and one running 4.0.0.2012.02.16 version. with the older version (not having the wildcard field list), it returns a payload of approximately 13MB in an average of 1.5 seconds. with the new version (2012.02.16) which is on the same machines as the older version (so network traffic/latency/hardware/etc are all the same), it's returning the reduced payload (approximately 1.5MB in an average of 3.5-4 seconds). I will say that we reloaded the core once and briefly saw the 1.5MB payload come back in 150-200 milliseconds, but within minutes we were back to the 3.5-4 seconds. We also noticed the CPU was being pegged for seconds when running the queries on the new build with the wildcard field list. We have a lower scale box running the 2011.11.17 version and had more success for a while. We were getting the 150-200 ms response time on the reduced payload for probably 30 minutes or so, and then it did the same thing - bumped up to 3-4 seconds in response time. Anyone have any experience with this type of random yet consistent performance degradation or have insight as to what might be causing the issues and how to fix them? We'd love to not only have the performance boost from fast vector highlighting, but also the decreased payload size. Thanks in advance! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3767015.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help
As an update to this... I tried running a query again the 4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56 version and the newer 4.0.0.2012.02.16 (both on the same box). So the query params were the same, returned results were the same, but the 4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56 returned the results in about 1.6 seconds and the newer (4.0.0.2012.02.16) version returned the results in about 4 seconds. If I add the wildcard field list to the newer version, the time increases anywhere from .5-1 second. These are all averages after running the queries several times over a 30 minute period. (allowing for warming and cache). Anybody have any insight into why the newer versions are performing a bit slower? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-Performance-Improvement-and-degradation-Help-tp3767015p3767725.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Solr binary response for C#?
Admittedly I'm new to this, but the project we're working on feeds results from Solr to an ASP.net application. Currently we are using XML, but our payloads can be rather large, some up to 17MB. We are looking for a way to minimize that payload and increase performance and I'm curious if there's anything anyone has been working out that creates a binary response that can be read by C# (similar to the javabin response built into Solr). That, or if anyone has experience implementing an external protocol like Thrift with Solr and consuming it with C# - again all in the effort to increase performance across the wire and while being consumed. Any help and direction would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-binary-response-for-C-tp3741101p3741101.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.