Re: Solr Performance Improvement and degradation Help

2012-02-27 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-27 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-24 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-24 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-24 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-24 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-24 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-23 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-23 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-23 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-22 Thread naptowndev
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

2012-02-22 Thread naptowndev
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#?

2012-02-13 Thread naptowndev
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.