Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
Here's Mike McCandless' blog on the topic: https://www.elastic.co/blog/lucenes-handling-of-deleted-documents The same options he mentions are available in Solr as both use Lucene under the covers. The long and short of it is that you can have a significant amount of deleted documents in your index, depending on the update pattern. One thing Mike doesn't mention is at the root of why I'm so negative about optimize (and forceMerge is just an optimize that only mashes segments together if they have > X% deleted docs). Let's say your max segment size is 5G. And you optimize an index down to a single 100G segment. That segment will _not_ be merged until it has < 2.5G live docs. That's not a typo. 97.5% deleted docs.. You could ameliorate this somewhat by specifying the number of segments after optimizing (default is 1). Say you determine that you have 100G of live data, specify 20 segments for optimize. This would be better I'd guess, but haven't tested personally. Best, Erick On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Webster Homer wrote: > Thank you, Erick Erickson and Shawn Heisey for your excellent answers. > For some of our collections, it would seem that an occasional optimize > would be a good thing. However we have some collections that are updated > constantly > > Would using the commit expungeDeletes help mitigate the issue? > > I also came across a discussion of Lucene merge policies. and the > TieredMergePolicy. > Is there documentation about this? I notice that a couple of our replicas > in some of our collections have ~30% deleted documents which I would think > would contribute to the problem. > I have at least 3 collections that are updated constantly, and would not > lend themselves to being optimized what is the best approach for these? > > Thanks > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > >> On 9/7/2017 8:54 AM, Webster Homer wrote: >> > I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the same >> > search gives different results after each search. The top document seems >> to >> > cycle between 3 different documents >> > >> > I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core admin >> api >> > to get the index information for the replica. >> > When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs and >> > deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number of >> > numdocs is. >> > >> > Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents >> wouldn't >> > that be a very significant bug? >> >> Lucene score calculations take a lot of information in the index into >> account when calculating the score. That includes deleted documents, >> because they are part of the index. When you delete a document, Lucene >> just makes a note saying "internal document ID number is deleted." >> The actual information for that document is not removed from the index, >> because doing so could take a very long time. >> >> When you make queries against a replicated SolrCloud, the queries are >> load balanced across the entire cloud, so different queries will hit >> different replicas. With different numbers of deleted documents in >> different replicas (which is not unusual), the scores are going to come >> out a little bit different on each query. If you're sorting by score >> (which is the default sort), that *can* affect the order. Your replicas >> have a fairly high percentage of deleted documents, so there is a lot of >> extra information affecting the scores. The relative difference in the >> deleted document count between the replicas is high as well, so multiple >> queries could be substantially different. >> >> It is not a bug that Lucene and Solr look at deleted documents. >> Removing deleted document information from things like the score >> calculation would be VERY computationally intense, bordering on the >> impossible. To assure good performance, Lucene doesn't even try. >> Because the way Lucene tracks deleted documents is with a list of >> internal Lucene document IDs, those documents are easily removed from >> *results*, but their contents are an integral part of the index and that >> information can only be truly removed by completely rewriting (merging) >> the index segments. >> >> You can get rid of all deleted documents with an optimize operation, >> which is a forced merge of the entire index down to one segment -- but >> just like it sounds, that is a complete rewrite of the index. It >> involves a huge amount of CPU resources and disk I/O, and can severely >> impact normal indexing and query operations while it's happening. If >> the collection is extremely large, an optimize could take hours. For >> indexes that change rapidly, optimize is strongly discouraged, except as >> an occasional "clean things up" operation, run during non-peak times. >> >> Thanks, >> Shawn >> >> > > -- > > > This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or > otherwise protected from dis
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
Thank you, Erick Erickson and Shawn Heisey for your excellent answers. For some of our collections, it would seem that an occasional optimize would be a good thing. However we have some collections that are updated constantly Would using the commit expungeDeletes help mitigate the issue? I also came across a discussion of Lucene merge policies. and the TieredMergePolicy. Is there documentation about this? I notice that a couple of our replicas in some of our collections have ~30% deleted documents which I would think would contribute to the problem. I have at least 3 collections that are updated constantly, and would not lend themselves to being optimized what is the best approach for these? Thanks On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 9/7/2017 8:54 AM, Webster Homer wrote: > > I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the same > > search gives different results after each search. The top document seems > to > > cycle between 3 different documents > > > > I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core admin > api > > to get the index information for the replica. > > When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs and > > deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number of > > numdocs is. > > > > Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents > wouldn't > > that be a very significant bug? > > Lucene score calculations take a lot of information in the index into > account when calculating the score. That includes deleted documents, > because they are part of the index. When you delete a document, Lucene > just makes a note saying "internal document ID number is deleted." > The actual information for that document is not removed from the index, > because doing so could take a very long time. > > When you make queries against a replicated SolrCloud, the queries are > load balanced across the entire cloud, so different queries will hit > different replicas. With different numbers of deleted documents in > different replicas (which is not unusual), the scores are going to come > out a little bit different on each query. If you're sorting by score > (which is the default sort), that *can* affect the order. Your replicas > have a fairly high percentage of deleted documents, so there is a lot of > extra information affecting the scores. The relative difference in the > deleted document count between the replicas is high as well, so multiple > queries could be substantially different. > > It is not a bug that Lucene and Solr look at deleted documents. > Removing deleted document information from things like the score > calculation would be VERY computationally intense, bordering on the > impossible. To assure good performance, Lucene doesn't even try. > Because the way Lucene tracks deleted documents is with a list of > internal Lucene document IDs, those documents are easily removed from > *results*, but their contents are an integral part of the index and that > information can only be truly removed by completely rewriting (merging) > the index segments. > > You can get rid of all deleted documents with an optimize operation, > which is a forced merge of the entire index down to one segment -- but > just like it sounds, that is a complete rewrite of the index. It > involves a huge amount of CPU resources and disk I/O, and can severely > impact normal indexing and query operations while it's happening. If > the collection is extremely large, an optimize could take hours. For > indexes that change rapidly, optimize is strongly discouraged, except as > an occasional "clean things up" operation, run during non-peak times. > > Thanks, > Shawn > > -- This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not accept liability for any omissions or errors in this message which may arise as a result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages resulting from any unauthorized changes of the content of this message and any attachment thereto. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not guarantee that this message is free of viruses and does not accept liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted therewith. Click http://www.emdgroup.com/disclaimer to access the German, French, Spanish and Portuguese versions of this disclaimer.
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
On 9/7/2017 8:54 AM, Webster Homer wrote: > I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the same > search gives different results after each search. The top document seems to > cycle between 3 different documents > > I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core admin api > to get the index information for the replica. > When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs and > deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number of > numdocs is. > > Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents wouldn't > that be a very significant bug? Lucene score calculations take a lot of information in the index into account when calculating the score. That includes deleted documents, because they are part of the index. When you delete a document, Lucene just makes a note saying "internal document ID number is deleted." The actual information for that document is not removed from the index, because doing so could take a very long time. When you make queries against a replicated SolrCloud, the queries are load balanced across the entire cloud, so different queries will hit different replicas. With different numbers of deleted documents in different replicas (which is not unusual), the scores are going to come out a little bit different on each query. If you're sorting by score (which is the default sort), that *can* affect the order. Your replicas have a fairly high percentage of deleted documents, so there is a lot of extra information affecting the scores. The relative difference in the deleted document count between the replicas is high as well, so multiple queries could be substantially different. It is not a bug that Lucene and Solr look at deleted documents. Removing deleted document information from things like the score calculation would be VERY computationally intense, bordering on the impossible. To assure good performance, Lucene doesn't even try. Because the way Lucene tracks deleted documents is with a list of internal Lucene document IDs, those documents are easily removed from *results*, but their contents are an integral part of the index and that information can only be truly removed by completely rewriting (merging) the index segments. You can get rid of all deleted documents with an optimize operation, which is a forced merge of the entire index down to one segment -- but just like it sounds, that is a complete rewrite of the index. It involves a huge amount of CPU resources and disk I/O, and can severely impact normal indexing and query operations while it's happening. If the collection is extremely large, an optimize could take hours. For indexes that change rapidly, optimize is strongly discouraged, except as an occasional "clean things up" operation, run during non-peak times. Thanks, Shawn
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
We have several cloud collections, but this one is updated once a day with a partial load, and once a week with a full load, followed by a delete which is based upon an index_date field (timestamp of the solr record). For this and related collections optimizing once per day is probably acceptable. We do have other collections that are updated every 15 minutes, I don't think those would be able to be optimized from what you write. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > bq: So apparently it IS essential to run optimize after a data load > > Don't do this if you can avoid it, you run the risk of excessive > amounts of your index consisting of deleted documents unless you are > following a process whereby you periodically (and I'm talking at least > hours, if not once per day) index data then don't change the index for > a bunch more hours. > > You're missing the point when it comes to deleted docs. Different > replicas of the _same_ shard commit at different wall clock times due > to network delays. Therefore, which segments are merged will not be > identical between replicas when a commit happens, since commits are > local. > > So replica1 may merge segments 1, 3, 6 in to segment 7 > replica2 may merge segments 1, 2, 4 into segment 7 > > Here's the key: Now replica1 may have 100 deleted documents (ones > marked as deleted but still in segments 2, 4 and 5 > replica2 may have 90 deleted > documents (the ones still in segments 3, 5 and 6) > > The statistics in the term frequency and document frequency for some > terms are _not_ the same. Therefore the scoring will be slightly > different. Therefore, depending on which replica serves the query, the > order of docs may be somewhat different if the scores are close. > > optimizing squeezes all the deleted documents out of all the replicas > so the scores become identical. > > This doesn't happen, of course, if you have only one replica. > > Best, > Erick > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Webster Homer > wrote: > > We have several solr clouds, a couple of them have only 1 replica per > > shard. We have never observed the problem when we have a single replica > > only when there are multiple replicas per shard. > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Webster Homer > > wrote: > > > >> the scores are not the same > >> Doc > >> 305340 432.44238 > >> C2646 428.24185 > >> 12837 430.61722 > >> > >> One other thing. I just ran optimize and now document 305340 is > >> consistently the top score. > >> So apparently it IS essential to run optimize after a data load > >> > >> Note we see this behavior fairly commonly on our solr cloud instances. > >> This was not the first time. This particular situation was on a > development > >> system > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Webster Homer > >> wrote: > >> > >>> the scores are not the same > >>> Doc > >>> 305340 432.44238 > >>> > >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:02 AM, David Hastings < > >>> hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > "I am concerned that the same > search gives different results after each search. The top document > seems > to > cycle between 3 different documents" > > > if you do debug query on the search, are the scores for the top 3 > documents > the same or not? you can easily have three documents with the same > score, > so when you have a result set that is ranked 1-1-1-2-3-4 you can > expect > 1-1-1 to rotate based on whatever. use a second element like id to > your > ranking perhaps. > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Webster Homer < > webster.ho...@sial.com> > wrote: > > > I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the > same > > search gives different results after each search. The top document > seems to > > cycle between 3 different documents > > > > I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core > admin > api > > to get the index information for the replica. > > When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs > and > > deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number > of > > numdocs is. > > > > Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents > wouldn't > > that be a very significant bug? > > > > The four replicas: > > shard1 > > core_node1 > > "numDocs": 383817, > > "maxDocs": 611592, > > "deletedDocs": 227775, > > "size": "2.49 GB", > > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.639Z", > > "current": true, > > "version": 35644, > > "segmentCount": 28 > > > > core_node3 > > "numDocs": 383817, > > "maxDocs": 571737, > > "deletedDocs": 187920, > > "size": "2.85 GB", > > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.634Z", > > "current": false, > >
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
bq: So apparently it IS essential to run optimize after a data load Don't do this if you can avoid it, you run the risk of excessive amounts of your index consisting of deleted documents unless you are following a process whereby you periodically (and I'm talking at least hours, if not once per day) index data then don't change the index for a bunch more hours. You're missing the point when it comes to deleted docs. Different replicas of the _same_ shard commit at different wall clock times due to network delays. Therefore, which segments are merged will not be identical between replicas when a commit happens, since commits are local. So replica1 may merge segments 1, 3, 6 in to segment 7 replica2 may merge segments 1, 2, 4 into segment 7 Here's the key: Now replica1 may have 100 deleted documents (ones marked as deleted but still in segments 2, 4 and 5 replica2 may have 90 deleted documents (the ones still in segments 3, 5 and 6) The statistics in the term frequency and document frequency for some terms are _not_ the same. Therefore the scoring will be slightly different. Therefore, depending on which replica serves the query, the order of docs may be somewhat different if the scores are close. optimizing squeezes all the deleted documents out of all the replicas so the scores become identical. This doesn't happen, of course, if you have only one replica. Best, Erick On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Webster Homer wrote: > We have several solr clouds, a couple of them have only 1 replica per > shard. We have never observed the problem when we have a single replica > only when there are multiple replicas per shard. > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Webster Homer > wrote: > >> the scores are not the same >> Doc >> 305340 432.44238 >> C2646 428.24185 >> 12837 430.61722 >> >> One other thing. I just ran optimize and now document 305340 is >> consistently the top score. >> So apparently it IS essential to run optimize after a data load >> >> Note we see this behavior fairly commonly on our solr cloud instances. >> This was not the first time. This particular situation was on a development >> system >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Webster Homer >> wrote: >> >>> the scores are not the same >>> Doc >>> 305340 432.44238 >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:02 AM, David Hastings < >>> hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> "I am concerned that the same search gives different results after each search. The top document seems to cycle between 3 different documents" if you do debug query on the search, are the scores for the top 3 documents the same or not? you can easily have three documents with the same score, so when you have a result set that is ranked 1-1-1-2-3-4 you can expect 1-1-1 to rotate based on whatever. use a second element like id to your ranking perhaps. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Webster Homer wrote: > I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the same > search gives different results after each search. The top document seems to > cycle between 3 different documents > > I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core admin api > to get the index information for the replica. > When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs and > deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number of > numdocs is. > > Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents wouldn't > that be a very significant bug? > > The four replicas: > shard1 > core_node1 > "numDocs": 383817, > "maxDocs": 611592, > "deletedDocs": 227775, > "size": "2.49 GB", > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.639Z", > "current": true, > "version": 35644, > "segmentCount": 28 > > core_node3 > "numDocs": 383817, > "maxDocs": 571737, > "deletedDocs": 187920, > "size": "2.85 GB", > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.634Z", > "current": false, > "version": 35562, > "segmentCount": 36 > shard2 > core_node2 > "numDocs": 385326, > "maxDocs": 529214, > "deletedDocs": 143888, > "size": "2.13 GB", > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.632Z", > "current": true, > "version": 34783, > "segmentCount": 24 > core_node4 > "numDocs": 385326, > "maxDocs": 488201, > "deletedDocs": 102875, > "size": "1.96 GB", > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.633Z", > "current": true, > "version": 34932, > "segmentCount": 21 > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Erick Erickson < erickerick...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > bq:
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
We have several solr clouds, a couple of them have only 1 replica per shard. We have never observed the problem when we have a single replica only when there are multiple replicas per shard. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Webster Homer wrote: > the scores are not the same > Doc > 305340 432.44238 > C2646 428.24185 > 12837 430.61722 > > One other thing. I just ran optimize and now document 305340 is > consistently the top score. > So apparently it IS essential to run optimize after a data load > > Note we see this behavior fairly commonly on our solr cloud instances. > This was not the first time. This particular situation was on a development > system > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Webster Homer > wrote: > >> the scores are not the same >> Doc >> 305340 432.44238 >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:02 AM, David Hastings < >> hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> "I am concerned that the same >>> search gives different results after each search. The top document seems >>> to >>> cycle between 3 different documents" >>> >>> >>> if you do debug query on the search, are the scores for the top 3 >>> documents >>> the same or not? you can easily have three documents with the same >>> score, >>> so when you have a result set that is ranked 1-1-1-2-3-4 you can >>> expect >>> 1-1-1 to rotate based on whatever. use a second element like id to your >>> ranking perhaps. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Webster Homer >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the >>> same >>> > search gives different results after each search. The top document >>> seems to >>> > cycle between 3 different documents >>> > >>> > I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core admin >>> api >>> > to get the index information for the replica. >>> > When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs and >>> > deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number of >>> > numdocs is. >>> > >>> > Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents >>> wouldn't >>> > that be a very significant bug? >>> > >>> > The four replicas: >>> > shard1 >>> > core_node1 >>> > "numDocs": 383817, >>> > "maxDocs": 611592, >>> > "deletedDocs": 227775, >>> > "size": "2.49 GB", >>> > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.639Z", >>> > "current": true, >>> > "version": 35644, >>> > "segmentCount": 28 >>> > >>> > core_node3 >>> > "numDocs": 383817, >>> > "maxDocs": 571737, >>> > "deletedDocs": 187920, >>> > "size": "2.85 GB", >>> > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.634Z", >>> > "current": false, >>> > "version": 35562, >>> > "segmentCount": 36 >>> > shard2 >>> > core_node2 >>> > "numDocs": 385326, >>> > "maxDocs": 529214, >>> > "deletedDocs": 143888, >>> > "size": "2.13 GB", >>> > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.632Z", >>> > "current": true, >>> > "version": 34783, >>> > "segmentCount": 24 >>> > core_node4 >>> > "numDocs": 385326, >>> > "maxDocs": 488201, >>> > "deletedDocs": 102875, >>> > "size": "1.96 GB", >>> > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.633Z", >>> > "current": true, >>> > "version": 34932, >>> > "segmentCount": 21 >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Yonik Seeley >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Erick Erickson < >>> erickerick...@gmail.com >>> > > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > bq: and deleted documents are irrelevant to term statistics... >>> > > > >>> > > > Did you mean "relevant"? Or do I have to adjust my thinking >>> _again_? >>> > > >>> > > One can make it work either way ;-) >>> > > Whether a document is marked as deleted or not has no effect on term >>> > > statistics (i.e. irrelevant) >>> > > OR documents marked for deletion still count in term statistics (i.e. >>> > > relevant) >>> > > >>> > > I guess I used the former because we don't go out of our way to still >>> > > include deleted documents... it's just a side effect of the index >>> > > structure that we don't (and can't easily) update statistics when a >>> > > document is marked as deleted. >>> > > >>> > > -Yonik >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > Erick >>> > > > >>> > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Yonik Seeley >>> > wrote: >>> > > >> Different replicas of the same shard can have different numbers of >>> > > >> deleted documents (really just marked as deleted), and deleted >>> > > >> documents are irrelevant to term statistics (like the number of >>> > > >> documents a term appears in). Documents marked for deletion stop >>> > > >> contributing to corpus statistics when they are actually removed >>> (via >>> > > >> expunge deletes, merges, optimizes). >>> > > >> -Yonik >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Webster Homer < >>> webster.ho...@sial.com >>> > > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards >>> and 4 >>> > > >>> replicas (total of 4 nodes). >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> If I run the query multiple times I see the three di
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
the scores are not the same Doc 305340 432.44238 C2646 428.24185 12837 430.61722 One other thing. I just ran optimize and now document 305340 is consistently the top score. So apparently it IS essential to run optimize after a data load Note we see this behavior fairly commonly on our solr cloud instances. This was not the first time. This particular situation was on a development system On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Webster Homer wrote: > the scores are not the same > Doc > 305340 432.44238 > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:02 AM, David Hastings < > hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "I am concerned that the same >> search gives different results after each search. The top document seems >> to >> cycle between 3 different documents" >> >> >> if you do debug query on the search, are the scores for the top 3 >> documents >> the same or not? you can easily have three documents with the same score, >> so when you have a result set that is ranked 1-1-1-2-3-4 you can >> expect >> 1-1-1 to rotate based on whatever. use a second element like id to your >> ranking perhaps. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Webster Homer >> wrote: >> >> > I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the same >> > search gives different results after each search. The top document >> seems to >> > cycle between 3 different documents >> > >> > I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core admin >> api >> > to get the index information for the replica. >> > When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs and >> > deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number of >> > numdocs is. >> > >> > Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents >> wouldn't >> > that be a very significant bug? >> > >> > The four replicas: >> > shard1 >> > core_node1 >> > "numDocs": 383817, >> > "maxDocs": 611592, >> > "deletedDocs": 227775, >> > "size": "2.49 GB", >> > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.639Z", >> > "current": true, >> > "version": 35644, >> > "segmentCount": 28 >> > >> > core_node3 >> > "numDocs": 383817, >> > "maxDocs": 571737, >> > "deletedDocs": 187920, >> > "size": "2.85 GB", >> > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.634Z", >> > "current": false, >> > "version": 35562, >> > "segmentCount": 36 >> > shard2 >> > core_node2 >> > "numDocs": 385326, >> > "maxDocs": 529214, >> > "deletedDocs": 143888, >> > "size": "2.13 GB", >> > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.632Z", >> > "current": true, >> > "version": 34783, >> > "segmentCount": 24 >> > core_node4 >> > "numDocs": 385326, >> > "maxDocs": 488201, >> > "deletedDocs": 102875, >> > "size": "1.96 GB", >> > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.633Z", >> > "current": true, >> > "version": 34932, >> > "segmentCount": 21 >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: >> > >> > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Erick Erickson < >> erickerick...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > > bq: and deleted documents are irrelevant to term statistics... >> > > > >> > > > Did you mean "relevant"? Or do I have to adjust my thinking _again_? >> > > >> > > One can make it work either way ;-) >> > > Whether a document is marked as deleted or not has no effect on term >> > > statistics (i.e. irrelevant) >> > > OR documents marked for deletion still count in term statistics (i.e. >> > > relevant) >> > > >> > > I guess I used the former because we don't go out of our way to still >> > > include deleted documents... it's just a side effect of the index >> > > structure that we don't (and can't easily) update statistics when a >> > > document is marked as deleted. >> > > >> > > -Yonik >> > > >> > > >> > > > Erick >> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Yonik Seeley >> > wrote: >> > > >> Different replicas of the same shard can have different numbers of >> > > >> deleted documents (really just marked as deleted), and deleted >> > > >> documents are irrelevant to term statistics (like the number of >> > > >> documents a term appears in). Documents marked for deletion stop >> > > >> contributing to corpus statistics when they are actually removed >> (via >> > > >> expunge deletes, merges, optimizes). >> > > >> -Yonik >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Webster Homer < >> webster.ho...@sial.com >> > > >> > > wrote: >> > > >>> I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards >> and 4 >> > > >>> replicas (total of 4 nodes). >> > > >>> >> > > >>> If I run the query multiple times I see the three different top >> > scoring >> > > >>> results. >> > > >>> No data load is running, all data has been commited >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I get these three different hits with their scores: >> > > >>> copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194430.61722 >> > > >>> copperiinitrateoncelite1234598765 >> > > 432.44238 >> > > >>> copperiinitratehydrate18756anhydrousbasis13778319 428.24185 >> > > >>> >> > > >>> How is it that
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
the scores are not the same Doc 305340 432.44238 On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:02 AM, David Hastings < hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> wrote: > "I am concerned that the same > search gives different results after each search. The top document seems to > cycle between 3 different documents" > > > if you do debug query on the search, are the scores for the top 3 documents > the same or not? you can easily have three documents with the same score, > so when you have a result set that is ranked 1-1-1-2-3-4 you can expect > 1-1-1 to rotate based on whatever. use a second element like id to your > ranking perhaps. > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Webster Homer > wrote: > > > I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the same > > search gives different results after each search. The top document seems > to > > cycle between 3 different documents > > > > I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core admin > api > > to get the index information for the replica. > > When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs and > > deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number of > > numdocs is. > > > > Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents > wouldn't > > that be a very significant bug? > > > > The four replicas: > > shard1 > > core_node1 > > "numDocs": 383817, > > "maxDocs": 611592, > > "deletedDocs": 227775, > > "size": "2.49 GB", > > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.639Z", > > "current": true, > > "version": 35644, > > "segmentCount": 28 > > > > core_node3 > > "numDocs": 383817, > > "maxDocs": 571737, > > "deletedDocs": 187920, > > "size": "2.85 GB", > > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.634Z", > > "current": false, > > "version": 35562, > > "segmentCount": 36 > > shard2 > > core_node2 > > "numDocs": 385326, > > "maxDocs": 529214, > > "deletedDocs": 143888, > > "size": "2.13 GB", > > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.632Z", > > "current": true, > > "version": 34783, > > "segmentCount": 24 > > core_node4 > > "numDocs": 385326, > > "maxDocs": 488201, > > "deletedDocs": 102875, > > "size": "1.96 GB", > > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.633Z", > > "current": true, > > "version": 34932, > > "segmentCount": 21 > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Erick Erickson < > erickerick...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > bq: and deleted documents are irrelevant to term statistics... > > > > > > > > Did you mean "relevant"? Or do I have to adjust my thinking _again_? > > > > > > One can make it work either way ;-) > > > Whether a document is marked as deleted or not has no effect on term > > > statistics (i.e. irrelevant) > > > OR documents marked for deletion still count in term statistics (i.e. > > > relevant) > > > > > > I guess I used the former because we don't go out of our way to still > > > include deleted documents... it's just a side effect of the index > > > structure that we don't (and can't easily) update statistics when a > > > document is marked as deleted. > > > > > > -Yonik > > > > > > > > > > Erick > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Yonik Seeley > > wrote: > > > >> Different replicas of the same shard can have different numbers of > > > >> deleted documents (really just marked as deleted), and deleted > > > >> documents are irrelevant to term statistics (like the number of > > > >> documents a term appears in). Documents marked for deletion stop > > > >> contributing to corpus statistics when they are actually removed > (via > > > >> expunge deletes, merges, optimizes). > > > >> -Yonik > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Webster Homer < > webster.ho...@sial.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > >>> I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards and > 4 > > > >>> replicas (total of 4 nodes). > > > >>> > > > >>> If I run the query multiple times I see the three different top > > scoring > > > >>> results. > > > >>> No data load is running, all data has been commited > > > >>> > > > >>> I get these three different hits with their scores: > > > >>> copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194430.61722 > > > >>> copperiinitrateoncelite1234598765 > > > 432.44238 > > > >>> copperiinitratehydrate18756anhydrousbasis13778319 428.24185 > > > >>> > > > >>> How is it that the same search against the same data can give > > different > > > >>> responses? > > > >>> I looked at the specific cores they look OK the numdocs for the > > > replicas in > > > >>> a shard match > > > >>> > > > >>> This is the query: > > > >>> http://ae1c-ecomdev-msc01.sial.com:8983/solr/sial- > > > catalog-product/select?defType=edismax&fl=searchmv_ > > > en_keywords,%20searchmv_keywords,searchmv_pno,% > > 20searchmv_en_s_pri_name,% > > > 20search_en_p_pri_name,%20search_pno%20[explain% > > > 20style=nl]&group.field=id_s&group.limit=30&group=true& > > > group.sort=sort_ds%20asc&indent=on&mm=2%3C-25%25
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
"I am concerned that the same search gives different results after each search. The top document seems to cycle between 3 different documents" if you do debug query on the search, are the scores for the top 3 documents the same or not? you can easily have three documents with the same score, so when you have a result set that is ranked 1-1-1-2-3-4 you can expect 1-1-1 to rotate based on whatever. use a second element like id to your ranking perhaps. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Webster Homer wrote: > I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the same > search gives different results after each search. The top document seems to > cycle between 3 different documents > > I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core admin api > to get the index information for the replica. > When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs and > deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number of > numdocs is. > > Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents wouldn't > that be a very significant bug? > > The four replicas: > shard1 > core_node1 > "numDocs": 383817, > "maxDocs": 611592, > "deletedDocs": 227775, > "size": "2.49 GB", > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.639Z", > "current": true, > "version": 35644, > "segmentCount": 28 > > core_node3 > "numDocs": 383817, > "maxDocs": 571737, > "deletedDocs": 187920, > "size": "2.85 GB", > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.634Z", > "current": false, > "version": 35562, > "segmentCount": 36 > shard2 > core_node2 > "numDocs": 385326, > "maxDocs": 529214, > "deletedDocs": 143888, > "size": "2.13 GB", > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.632Z", > "current": true, > "version": 34783, > "segmentCount": 24 > core_node4 > "numDocs": 385326, > "maxDocs": 488201, > "deletedDocs": 102875, > "size": "1.96 GB", > "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.633Z", > "current": true, > "version": 34932, > "segmentCount": 21 > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Erick Erickson > > > wrote: > > > bq: and deleted documents are irrelevant to term statistics... > > > > > > Did you mean "relevant"? Or do I have to adjust my thinking _again_? > > > > One can make it work either way ;-) > > Whether a document is marked as deleted or not has no effect on term > > statistics (i.e. irrelevant) > > OR documents marked for deletion still count in term statistics (i.e. > > relevant) > > > > I guess I used the former because we don't go out of our way to still > > include deleted documents... it's just a side effect of the index > > structure that we don't (and can't easily) update statistics when a > > document is marked as deleted. > > > > -Yonik > > > > > > > Erick > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Yonik Seeley > wrote: > > >> Different replicas of the same shard can have different numbers of > > >> deleted documents (really just marked as deleted), and deleted > > >> documents are irrelevant to term statistics (like the number of > > >> documents a term appears in). Documents marked for deletion stop > > >> contributing to corpus statistics when they are actually removed (via > > >> expunge deletes, merges, optimizes). > > >> -Yonik > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Webster Homer > > > wrote: > > >>> I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards and 4 > > >>> replicas (total of 4 nodes). > > >>> > > >>> If I run the query multiple times I see the three different top > scoring > > >>> results. > > >>> No data load is running, all data has been commited > > >>> > > >>> I get these three different hits with their scores: > > >>> copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194430.61722 > > >>> copperiinitrateoncelite1234598765 > > 432.44238 > > >>> copperiinitratehydrate18756anhydrousbasis13778319 428.24185 > > >>> > > >>> How is it that the same search against the same data can give > different > > >>> responses? > > >>> I looked at the specific cores they look OK the numdocs for the > > replicas in > > >>> a shard match > > >>> > > >>> This is the query: > > >>> http://ae1c-ecomdev-msc01.sial.com:8983/solr/sial- > > catalog-product/select?defType=edismax&fl=searchmv_ > > en_keywords,%20searchmv_keywords,searchmv_pno,% > 20searchmv_en_s_pri_name,% > > 20search_en_p_pri_name,%20search_pno%20[explain% > > 20style=nl]&group.field=id_s&group.limit=30&group=true& > > group.sort=sort_ds%20asc&indent=on&mm=2%3C-25%25&q.op= > > OR&q=copper%20nitrate&qf=search_pid > > >>> ^500%20search_concat_pno^400%20searchmv_concat_sku^400% > > 20searchmv_pno^300%20search_concat_pno_genr^100%20searchmv_pno_genr% > > 20searchmv_p_skus_genr%20searchmv_user_term^200% > > 20search_lform^190%20searchmv_en_acronym^180%20search_en_ > > root_name^170%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name^160%20search_en_p_ > > pri_name^150%20searchmv_en_synonyms^145%20searchmv_en_ > > keywords^140%20search_en_sortkey^120%20searchmv_p_skus
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
I am not concerned about deleted documents. I am concerned that the same search gives different results after each search. The top document seems to cycle between 3 different documents I have an enhanced collections info api call that calls the core admin api to get the index information for the replica. When I said the numdocs were the same I meant exactly that. maxdocs and deleted documents are not the same for the replicas, but the number of numdocs is. Or are you saying that the search is looking at deleted documents wouldn't that be a very significant bug? The four replicas: shard1 core_node1 "numDocs": 383817, "maxDocs": 611592, "deletedDocs": 227775, "size": "2.49 GB", "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.639Z", "current": true, "version": 35644, "segmentCount": 28 core_node3 "numDocs": 383817, "maxDocs": 571737, "deletedDocs": 187920, "size": "2.85 GB", "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.634Z", "current": false, "version": 35562, "segmentCount": 36 shard2 core_node2 "numDocs": 385326, "maxDocs": 529214, "deletedDocs": 143888, "size": "2.13 GB", "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.632Z", "current": true, "version": 34783, "segmentCount": 24 core_node4 "numDocs": 385326, "maxDocs": 488201, "deletedDocs": 102875, "size": "1.96 GB", "lastModified": "2017-09-07T08:18:03.633Z", "current": true, "version": 34932, "segmentCount": 21 On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Erick Erickson > wrote: > > bq: and deleted documents are irrelevant to term statistics... > > > > Did you mean "relevant"? Or do I have to adjust my thinking _again_? > > One can make it work either way ;-) > Whether a document is marked as deleted or not has no effect on term > statistics (i.e. irrelevant) > OR documents marked for deletion still count in term statistics (i.e. > relevant) > > I guess I used the former because we don't go out of our way to still > include deleted documents... it's just a side effect of the index > structure that we don't (and can't easily) update statistics when a > document is marked as deleted. > > -Yonik > > > > Erick > > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > >> Different replicas of the same shard can have different numbers of > >> deleted documents (really just marked as deleted), and deleted > >> documents are irrelevant to term statistics (like the number of > >> documents a term appears in). Documents marked for deletion stop > >> contributing to corpus statistics when they are actually removed (via > >> expunge deletes, merges, optimizes). > >> -Yonik > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Webster Homer > wrote: > >>> I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards and 4 > >>> replicas (total of 4 nodes). > >>> > >>> If I run the query multiple times I see the three different top scoring > >>> results. > >>> No data load is running, all data has been commited > >>> > >>> I get these three different hits with their scores: > >>> copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194430.61722 > >>> copperiinitrateoncelite1234598765 > 432.44238 > >>> copperiinitratehydrate18756anhydrousbasis13778319 428.24185 > >>> > >>> How is it that the same search against the same data can give different > >>> responses? > >>> I looked at the specific cores they look OK the numdocs for the > replicas in > >>> a shard match > >>> > >>> This is the query: > >>> http://ae1c-ecomdev-msc01.sial.com:8983/solr/sial- > catalog-product/select?defType=edismax&fl=searchmv_ > en_keywords,%20searchmv_keywords,searchmv_pno,%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name,% > 20search_en_p_pri_name,%20search_pno%20[explain% > 20style=nl]&group.field=id_s&group.limit=30&group=true& > group.sort=sort_ds%20asc&indent=on&mm=2%3C-25%25&q.op= > OR&q=copper%20nitrate&qf=search_pid > >>> ^500%20search_concat_pno^400%20searchmv_concat_sku^400% > 20searchmv_pno^300%20search_concat_pno_genr^100%20searchmv_pno_genr% > 20searchmv_p_skus_genr%20searchmv_user_term^200% > 20search_lform^190%20searchmv_en_acronym^180%20search_en_ > root_name^170%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name^160%20search_en_p_ > pri_name^150%20searchmv_en_synonyms^145%20searchmv_en_ > keywords^140%20search_en_sortkey^120%20searchmv_p_skus^ > 100%20searchmv_chem_comp^90%20searchmv_en_name_suf% > 20searchmv_cas_number^80%20searchmv_component_cas^70% > 20search_beilstein^50%20search_color_idx^40%20search_ecnumber^30%20search_ > egecnumber^30%20search_femanumber^20%20searchmv_isbn^ > 10%20search_mdl_number%20searchmv_en_page_title% > 20searchmv_en_descriptions%20searchmv_en_attributes% > 20searchmv_rtecs%20searchmv_lookahead_terms%20searchmv_ > xref_comparable_pno%20searchmv_xref_comparable_sku%20searchmv_xref_ > equivalent_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_pno%20searchmv_ > xref_exact_sku%20searchmv_component_molform&rows=30& > sort=score%20desc,sort_en_name%20asc,sort_ds%20asc, > search_pid%20asc&wt=json > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> > >>> This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged > or
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
Whew! I haven't been lying to people for _years_.. On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Erick Erickson > wrote: >> bq: and deleted documents are irrelevant to term statistics... >> >> Did you mean "relevant"? Or do I have to adjust my thinking _again_? > > One can make it work either way ;-) > Whether a document is marked as deleted or not has no effect on term > statistics (i.e. irrelevant) > OR documents marked for deletion still count in term statistics (i.e. > relevant) > > I guess I used the former because we don't go out of our way to still > include deleted documents... it's just a side effect of the index > structure that we don't (and can't easily) update statistics when a > document is marked as deleted. > > -Yonik > > >> Erick >> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: >>> Different replicas of the same shard can have different numbers of >>> deleted documents (really just marked as deleted), and deleted >>> documents are irrelevant to term statistics (like the number of >>> documents a term appears in). Documents marked for deletion stop >>> contributing to corpus statistics when they are actually removed (via >>> expunge deletes, merges, optimizes). >>> -Yonik >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Webster Homer >>> wrote: I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards and 4 replicas (total of 4 nodes). If I run the query multiple times I see the three different top scoring results. No data load is running, all data has been commited I get these three different hits with their scores: copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194430.61722 copperiinitrateoncelite1234598765 432.44238 copperiinitratehydrate18756anhydrousbasis13778319 428.24185 How is it that the same search against the same data can give different responses? I looked at the specific cores they look OK the numdocs for the replicas in a shard match This is the query: http://ae1c-ecomdev-msc01.sial.com:8983/solr/sial-catalog-product/select?defType=edismax&fl=searchmv_en_keywords,%20searchmv_keywords,searchmv_pno,%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name,%20search_en_p_pri_name,%20search_pno%20[explain%20style=nl]&group.field=id_s&group.limit=30&group=true&group.sort=sort_ds%20asc&indent=on&mm=2%3C-25%25&q.op=OR&q=copper%20nitrate&qf=search_pid ^500%20search_concat_pno^400%20searchmv_concat_sku^400%20searchmv_pno^300%20search_concat_pno_genr^100%20searchmv_pno_genr%20searchmv_p_skus_genr%20searchmv_user_term^200%20search_lform^190%20searchmv_en_acronym^180%20search_en_root_name^170%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name^160%20search_en_p_pri_name^150%20searchmv_en_synonyms^145%20searchmv_en_keywords^140%20search_en_sortkey^120%20searchmv_p_skus^100%20searchmv_chem_comp^90%20searchmv_en_name_suf%20searchmv_cas_number^80%20searchmv_component_cas^70%20search_beilstein^50%20search_color_idx^40%20search_ecnumber^30%20search_egecnumber^30%20search_femanumber^20%20searchmv_isbn^10%20search_mdl_number%20searchmv_en_page_title%20searchmv_en_descriptions%20searchmv_en_attributes%20searchmv_rtecs%20searchmv_lookahead_terms%20searchmv_xref_comparable_pno%20searchmv_xref_comparable_sku%20searchmv_xref_equivalent_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_sku%20searchmv_component_molform&rows=30&sort=score%20desc,sort_en_name%20asc,sort_ds%20asc,search_pid%20asc&wt=json -- This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not accept liability for any omissions or errors in this message which may arise as a result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages resulting from any unauthorized changes of the content of this message and any attachment thereto. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not guarantee that this message is free of viruses and does not accept liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted therewith. Click http://www.emdgroup.com/disclaimer to access the German, French, Spanish and Portuguese versions of this disclaimer.
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: > bq: and deleted documents are irrelevant to term statistics... > > Did you mean "relevant"? Or do I have to adjust my thinking _again_? One can make it work either way ;-) Whether a document is marked as deleted or not has no effect on term statistics (i.e. irrelevant) OR documents marked for deletion still count in term statistics (i.e. relevant) I guess I used the former because we don't go out of our way to still include deleted documents... it's just a side effect of the index structure that we don't (and can't easily) update statistics when a document is marked as deleted. -Yonik > Erick > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: >> Different replicas of the same shard can have different numbers of >> deleted documents (really just marked as deleted), and deleted >> documents are irrelevant to term statistics (like the number of >> documents a term appears in). Documents marked for deletion stop >> contributing to corpus statistics when they are actually removed (via >> expunge deletes, merges, optimizes). >> -Yonik >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Webster Homer wrote: >>> I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards and 4 >>> replicas (total of 4 nodes). >>> >>> If I run the query multiple times I see the three different top scoring >>> results. >>> No data load is running, all data has been commited >>> >>> I get these three different hits with their scores: >>> copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194430.61722 >>> copperiinitrateoncelite1234598765 432.44238 >>> copperiinitratehydrate18756anhydrousbasis13778319 428.24185 >>> >>> How is it that the same search against the same data can give different >>> responses? >>> I looked at the specific cores they look OK the numdocs for the replicas in >>> a shard match >>> >>> This is the query: >>> http://ae1c-ecomdev-msc01.sial.com:8983/solr/sial-catalog-product/select?defType=edismax&fl=searchmv_en_keywords,%20searchmv_keywords,searchmv_pno,%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name,%20search_en_p_pri_name,%20search_pno%20[explain%20style=nl]&group.field=id_s&group.limit=30&group=true&group.sort=sort_ds%20asc&indent=on&mm=2%3C-25%25&q.op=OR&q=copper%20nitrate&qf=search_pid >>> ^500%20search_concat_pno^400%20searchmv_concat_sku^400%20searchmv_pno^300%20search_concat_pno_genr^100%20searchmv_pno_genr%20searchmv_p_skus_genr%20searchmv_user_term^200%20search_lform^190%20searchmv_en_acronym^180%20search_en_root_name^170%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name^160%20search_en_p_pri_name^150%20searchmv_en_synonyms^145%20searchmv_en_keywords^140%20search_en_sortkey^120%20searchmv_p_skus^100%20searchmv_chem_comp^90%20searchmv_en_name_suf%20searchmv_cas_number^80%20searchmv_component_cas^70%20search_beilstein^50%20search_color_idx^40%20search_ecnumber^30%20search_egecnumber^30%20search_femanumber^20%20searchmv_isbn^10%20search_mdl_number%20searchmv_en_page_title%20searchmv_en_descriptions%20searchmv_en_attributes%20searchmv_rtecs%20searchmv_lookahead_terms%20searchmv_xref_comparable_pno%20searchmv_xref_comparable_sku%20searchmv_xref_equivalent_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_sku%20searchmv_component_molform&rows=30&sort=score%20desc,sort_en_name%20asc,sort_ds%20asc,search_pid%20asc&wt=json >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, >>> you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to >>> any other person. If you have received this transmission in error, please >>> notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachment >>> from your system. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its >>> subsidiaries do not accept liability for any omissions or errors in this >>> message which may arise as a result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages >>> resulting from any unauthorized changes of the content of this message and >>> any attachment thereto. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its >>> subsidiaries do not guarantee that this message is free of viruses and does >>> not accept liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted >>> therewith. >>> >>> Click http://www.emdgroup.com/disclaimer to access the German, French, >>> Spanish and Portuguese versions of this disclaimer.
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
bq: and deleted documents are irrelevant to term statistics... Did you mean "relevant"? Or do I have to adjust my thinking _again_? Erick On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > Different replicas of the same shard can have different numbers of > deleted documents (really just marked as deleted), and deleted > documents are irrelevant to term statistics (like the number of > documents a term appears in). Documents marked for deletion stop > contributing to corpus statistics when they are actually removed (via > expunge deletes, merges, optimizes). > -Yonik > > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Webster Homer wrote: >> I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards and 4 >> replicas (total of 4 nodes). >> >> If I run the query multiple times I see the three different top scoring >> results. >> No data load is running, all data has been commited >> >> I get these three different hits with their scores: >> copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194430.61722 >> copperiinitrateoncelite1234598765 432.44238 >> copperiinitratehydrate18756anhydrousbasis13778319 428.24185 >> >> How is it that the same search against the same data can give different >> responses? >> I looked at the specific cores they look OK the numdocs for the replicas in >> a shard match >> >> This is the query: >> http://ae1c-ecomdev-msc01.sial.com:8983/solr/sial-catalog-product/select?defType=edismax&fl=searchmv_en_keywords,%20searchmv_keywords,searchmv_pno,%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name,%20search_en_p_pri_name,%20search_pno%20[explain%20style=nl]&group.field=id_s&group.limit=30&group=true&group.sort=sort_ds%20asc&indent=on&mm=2%3C-25%25&q.op=OR&q=copper%20nitrate&qf=search_pid >> ^500%20search_concat_pno^400%20searchmv_concat_sku^400%20searchmv_pno^300%20search_concat_pno_genr^100%20searchmv_pno_genr%20searchmv_p_skus_genr%20searchmv_user_term^200%20search_lform^190%20searchmv_en_acronym^180%20search_en_root_name^170%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name^160%20search_en_p_pri_name^150%20searchmv_en_synonyms^145%20searchmv_en_keywords^140%20search_en_sortkey^120%20searchmv_p_skus^100%20searchmv_chem_comp^90%20searchmv_en_name_suf%20searchmv_cas_number^80%20searchmv_component_cas^70%20search_beilstein^50%20search_color_idx^40%20search_ecnumber^30%20search_egecnumber^30%20search_femanumber^20%20searchmv_isbn^10%20search_mdl_number%20searchmv_en_page_title%20searchmv_en_descriptions%20searchmv_en_attributes%20searchmv_rtecs%20searchmv_lookahead_terms%20searchmv_xref_comparable_pno%20searchmv_xref_comparable_sku%20searchmv_xref_equivalent_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_sku%20searchmv_component_molform&rows=30&sort=score%20desc,sort_en_name%20asc,sort_ds%20asc,search_pid%20asc&wt=json >> >> -- >> >> >> This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, >> you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to >> any other person. If you have received this transmission in error, please >> notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachment >> from your system. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its >> subsidiaries do not accept liability for any omissions or errors in this >> message which may arise as a result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages >> resulting from any unauthorized changes of the content of this message and >> any attachment thereto. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its >> subsidiaries do not guarantee that this message is free of viruses and does >> not accept liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted >> therewith. >> >> Click http://www.emdgroup.com/disclaimer to access the German, French, >> Spanish and Portuguese versions of this disclaimer.
Re: Consecutive calls to a query give different results
Different replicas of the same shard can have different numbers of deleted documents (really just marked as deleted), and deleted documents are irrelevant to term statistics (like the number of documents a term appears in). Documents marked for deletion stop contributing to corpus statistics when they are actually removed (via expunge deletes, merges, optimizes). -Yonik On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Webster Homer wrote: > I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards and 4 > replicas (total of 4 nodes). > > If I run the query multiple times I see the three different top scoring > results. > No data load is running, all data has been commited > > I get these three different hits with their scores: > copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194430.61722 > copperiinitrateoncelite1234598765 432.44238 > copperiinitratehydrate18756anhydrousbasis13778319 428.24185 > > How is it that the same search against the same data can give different > responses? > I looked at the specific cores they look OK the numdocs for the replicas in > a shard match > > This is the query: > http://ae1c-ecomdev-msc01.sial.com:8983/solr/sial-catalog-product/select?defType=edismax&fl=searchmv_en_keywords,%20searchmv_keywords,searchmv_pno,%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name,%20search_en_p_pri_name,%20search_pno%20[explain%20style=nl]&group.field=id_s&group.limit=30&group=true&group.sort=sort_ds%20asc&indent=on&mm=2%3C-25%25&q.op=OR&q=copper%20nitrate&qf=search_pid > ^500%20search_concat_pno^400%20searchmv_concat_sku^400%20searchmv_pno^300%20search_concat_pno_genr^100%20searchmv_pno_genr%20searchmv_p_skus_genr%20searchmv_user_term^200%20search_lform^190%20searchmv_en_acronym^180%20search_en_root_name^170%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name^160%20search_en_p_pri_name^150%20searchmv_en_synonyms^145%20searchmv_en_keywords^140%20search_en_sortkey^120%20searchmv_p_skus^100%20searchmv_chem_comp^90%20searchmv_en_name_suf%20searchmv_cas_number^80%20searchmv_component_cas^70%20search_beilstein^50%20search_color_idx^40%20search_ecnumber^30%20search_egecnumber^30%20search_femanumber^20%20searchmv_isbn^10%20search_mdl_number%20searchmv_en_page_title%20searchmv_en_descriptions%20searchmv_en_attributes%20searchmv_rtecs%20searchmv_lookahead_terms%20searchmv_xref_comparable_pno%20searchmv_xref_comparable_sku%20searchmv_xref_equivalent_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_sku%20searchmv_component_molform&rows=30&sort=score%20desc,sort_en_name%20asc,sort_ds%20asc,search_pid%20asc&wt=json > > -- > > > This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or > otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, > you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to > any other person. If you have received this transmission in error, please > notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachment > from your system. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its > subsidiaries do not accept liability for any omissions or errors in this > message which may arise as a result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages > resulting from any unauthorized changes of the content of this message and > any attachment thereto. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its > subsidiaries do not guarantee that this message is free of viruses and does > not accept liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted > therewith. > > Click http://www.emdgroup.com/disclaimer to access the German, French, > Spanish and Portuguese versions of this disclaimer.
Consecutive calls to a query give different results
I am using Solr 6.2.0 configured as a solr cloud with 2 shards and 4 replicas (total of 4 nodes). If I run the query multiple times I see the three different top scoring results. No data load is running, all data has been commited I get these three different hits with their scores: copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194430.61722 copperiinitrateoncelite1234598765 432.44238 copperiinitratehydrate18756anhydrousbasis13778319 428.24185 How is it that the same search against the same data can give different responses? I looked at the specific cores they look OK the numdocs for the replicas in a shard match This is the query: http://ae1c-ecomdev-msc01.sial.com:8983/solr/sial-catalog-product/select?defType=edismax&fl=searchmv_en_keywords,%20searchmv_keywords,searchmv_pno,%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name,%20search_en_p_pri_name,%20search_pno%20[explain%20style=nl]&group.field=id_s&group.limit=30&group=true&group.sort=sort_ds%20asc&indent=on&mm=2%3C-25%25&q.op=OR&q=copper%20nitrate&qf=search_pid ^500%20search_concat_pno^400%20searchmv_concat_sku^400%20searchmv_pno^300%20search_concat_pno_genr^100%20searchmv_pno_genr%20searchmv_p_skus_genr%20searchmv_user_term^200%20search_lform^190%20searchmv_en_acronym^180%20search_en_root_name^170%20searchmv_en_s_pri_name^160%20search_en_p_pri_name^150%20searchmv_en_synonyms^145%20searchmv_en_keywords^140%20search_en_sortkey^120%20searchmv_p_skus^100%20searchmv_chem_comp^90%20searchmv_en_name_suf%20searchmv_cas_number^80%20searchmv_component_cas^70%20search_beilstein^50%20search_color_idx^40%20search_ecnumber^30%20search_egecnumber^30%20search_femanumber^20%20searchmv_isbn^10%20search_mdl_number%20searchmv_en_page_title%20searchmv_en_descriptions%20searchmv_en_attributes%20searchmv_rtecs%20searchmv_lookahead_terms%20searchmv_xref_comparable_pno%20searchmv_xref_comparable_sku%20searchmv_xref_equivalent_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_pno%20searchmv_xref_exact_sku%20searchmv_component_molform&rows=30&sort=score%20desc,sort_en_name%20asc,sort_ds%20asc,search_pid%20asc&wt=json -- This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not accept liability for any omissions or errors in this message which may arise as a result of E-Mail-transmission or for damages resulting from any unauthorized changes of the content of this message and any attachment thereto. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and any of its subsidiaries do not guarantee that this message is free of viruses and does not accept liability for any damages caused by any virus transmitted therewith. Click http://www.emdgroup.com/disclaimer to access the German, French, Spanish and Portuguese versions of this disclaimer.