Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
I suspect your problem is that termfreq is looking at _terms_, not phrases. It has no sense of position, that's a higher-level construct. So "Research Development" is searched as a single _term_, and there are no two-word terms. What use-case are you trying to solve? This seems like an XY problem perhaps.. Best, Erick On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 12:49 AM, ksmith wrote: > hi Salman, > > i getting one problem in solr 4.6 > i have upgrade solr 1.4 to solr 4.6 because of i want to display search term > count, > and term count getting by solr term frequency > but when i search only single word than its work fine i get perfect count > but when i search multiple word within double quote it returning 0 count > below is my code: > termfreq(datafield, "Research") its working fine > termfreq(datafield, "Research Development") its return 0 but multiple > document have the same word. > > i have try with different field type : text_gen, text_en_splitting, String > but i didnt get exact result > can you please help for this. > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-4-not-utilizing-multi-CPU-cores-tp4105058p4133256.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
hi Salman, i getting one problem in solr 4.6 i have upgrade solr 1.4 to solr 4.6 because of i want to display search term count, and term count getting by solr term frequency but when i search only single word than its work fine i get perfect count but when i search multiple word within double quote it returning 0 count below is my code: termfreq(datafield, "Research") its working fine termfreq(datafield, "Research Development") its return 0 but multiple document have the same word. i have try with different field type : text_gen, text_en_splitting, String but i didnt get exact result can you please help for this. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-4-not-utilizing-multi-CPU-cores-tp4105058p4133256.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
After debugging it seems that Query Parser code in Surround Parser is giving an issue in queries with Common Words. Has anyone tried Surround and Common Grams with SOLR 4? On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Daniel Collins wrote: > Fair enough, I'm not famiilar with Surround parser, but it does look like > some logic has changed there. > > > On 5 December 2013 12:38, Salman Akram > wrote: > > > Here is the response to your 2 questions: > > > > 1- Started from fresh Solr 4 config and modified custom stuff. > > > > 2- Index is same and optimized. > > > > However, as I said in a previous mail the issue seems to be Surround > Query > > Parser which is parsing the query in a different format. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Collins > >wrote: > > > > > Not sure if you are really stating the problem here. > > > > > > If you don't use Solr sharding, (I also assume you aren't using > > SolrCloud), > > > and I'm guessing you are a single core (but can you confirm). > > > > > > As I understand Solr's logic, for a single query on a single core, that > > > will only use 1 thread (ignoring updates, background merges, etc). A > > > Lucene index (with multiple segments) has each segment read > sequentially, > > > so a search must scan all the segments and that inherently is a > > > single-threaded activity. > > > > > > The fact that the search uses less CPU is not really the issue (it > might > > > actually be a GOOD thing, it could mean the code is more efficient!), > so > > I > > > would consider that a red herring. The real issue is that the search > > takes > > > longer in elapsed time. > > > > > > The usual questions apply: > > > > > > 1) how did you upgrade, did you port your config, or start from a > fresh > > > Solr 4 config and add your custom stuff to it. > > > 2) Is your new index comparable to your old one, does it have more > > > segments, how did you fill it (bulk import or upgrade of old 1.4.1 > > index), > > > and what is your merge policy for the index? > > > > > > Upgrades from such an old version of Solr have been asked before on the > > > list, the consensus is that you probably need to re-tune your > > configuration > > > (starting with a Solr 4 basic config) since Solr 4 is so different > under > > > the hood from 1.x > > > > > > > > > On 5 December 2013 09:11, Salman Akram > > > wrote: > > > > > > > More info on Cpu consumption: We have a server with 32 physical > cores. > > > > > > > > Same search when executed on SOLR 4.6 takes quite long and throughout > > > only > > > > uses 3% cpu (1 core). > > > > > > > > Same search when executed on SOLR 1.4.1 takes much less time and on > > > average > > > > uses around 40-50% cpu. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Salman Akram < > > > > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I missed one imp piece of info. Due to large size we have indexed > the > > > > date > > > > > with Common Grams. All of the words in slow search are in common > > grams > > > > and > > > > > when I debug it, they query is made properly with common grams. > > > > > > > > > > In debug all of the time is shown in process query time. > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what other info you need? Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Gazzarini < > > > agazzar...@apache.org > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could > > you > > > > give > > > > >> us more details > > > > >> > > > > >> Best, > > > > >> Gazza > > > > >> On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram" < > > > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > We recently upgraded to SOLR 4.6 from SOLR 1.4.1. Overall the > > > > >> performance > > > > >> > went down for large phrase queries. On some analysis we have > seen > > > that > > > > >> > 1.4.1 utilized multiple cpu cores for such queries but SOLR 4.6 > is > > > > only > > > > >> > utilizing single cpu core. Any idea on what could be the reason? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Note: We are not using SOLR Sharding. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > Regards, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Salman Akram > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Salman Akram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Salman Akram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Salman Akram > > > -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
Fair enough, I'm not famiilar with Surround parser, but it does look like some logic has changed there. On 5 December 2013 12:38, Salman Akram wrote: > Here is the response to your 2 questions: > > 1- Started from fresh Solr 4 config and modified custom stuff. > > 2- Index is same and optimized. > > However, as I said in a previous mail the issue seems to be Surround Query > Parser which is parsing the query in a different format. > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Collins >wrote: > > > Not sure if you are really stating the problem here. > > > > If you don't use Solr sharding, (I also assume you aren't using > SolrCloud), > > and I'm guessing you are a single core (but can you confirm). > > > > As I understand Solr's logic, for a single query on a single core, that > > will only use 1 thread (ignoring updates, background merges, etc). A > > Lucene index (with multiple segments) has each segment read sequentially, > > so a search must scan all the segments and that inherently is a > > single-threaded activity. > > > > The fact that the search uses less CPU is not really the issue (it might > > actually be a GOOD thing, it could mean the code is more efficient!), so > I > > would consider that a red herring. The real issue is that the search > takes > > longer in elapsed time. > > > > The usual questions apply: > > > > 1) how did you upgrade, did you port your config, or start from a fresh > > Solr 4 config and add your custom stuff to it. > > 2) Is your new index comparable to your old one, does it have more > > segments, how did you fill it (bulk import or upgrade of old 1.4.1 > index), > > and what is your merge policy for the index? > > > > Upgrades from such an old version of Solr have been asked before on the > > list, the consensus is that you probably need to re-tune your > configuration > > (starting with a Solr 4 basic config) since Solr 4 is so different under > > the hood from 1.x > > > > > > On 5 December 2013 09:11, Salman Akram > > wrote: > > > > > More info on Cpu consumption: We have a server with 32 physical cores. > > > > > > Same search when executed on SOLR 4.6 takes quite long and throughout > > only > > > uses 3% cpu (1 core). > > > > > > Same search when executed on SOLR 1.4.1 takes much less time and on > > average > > > uses around 40-50% cpu. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Salman Akram < > > > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > > > > > > > I missed one imp piece of info. Due to large size we have indexed the > > > date > > > > with Common Grams. All of the words in slow search are in common > grams > > > and > > > > when I debug it, they query is made properly with common grams. > > > > > > > > In debug all of the time is shown in process query time. > > > > > > > > Let me know what other info you need? Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Gazzarini < > > agazzar...@apache.org > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could > you > > > give > > > >> us more details > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Gazza > > > >> On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram" < > > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi, > > > >> > > > > >> > We recently upgraded to SOLR 4.6 from SOLR 1.4.1. Overall the > > > >> performance > > > >> > went down for large phrase queries. On some analysis we have seen > > that > > > >> > 1.4.1 utilized multiple cpu cores for such queries but SOLR 4.6 is > > > only > > > >> > utilizing single cpu core. Any idea on what could be the reason? > > > >> > > > > >> > Note: We are not using SOLR Sharding. > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Regards, > > > >> > > > > >> > Salman Akram > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Salman Akram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Salman Akram > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram >
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
Here is the response to your 2 questions: 1- Started from fresh Solr 4 config and modified custom stuff. 2- Index is same and optimized. However, as I said in a previous mail the issue seems to be Surround Query Parser which is parsing the query in a different format. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Collins wrote: > Not sure if you are really stating the problem here. > > If you don't use Solr sharding, (I also assume you aren't using SolrCloud), > and I'm guessing you are a single core (but can you confirm). > > As I understand Solr's logic, for a single query on a single core, that > will only use 1 thread (ignoring updates, background merges, etc). A > Lucene index (with multiple segments) has each segment read sequentially, > so a search must scan all the segments and that inherently is a > single-threaded activity. > > The fact that the search uses less CPU is not really the issue (it might > actually be a GOOD thing, it could mean the code is more efficient!), so I > would consider that a red herring. The real issue is that the search takes > longer in elapsed time. > > The usual questions apply: > > 1) how did you upgrade, did you port your config, or start from a fresh > Solr 4 config and add your custom stuff to it. > 2) Is your new index comparable to your old one, does it have more > segments, how did you fill it (bulk import or upgrade of old 1.4.1 index), > and what is your merge policy for the index? > > Upgrades from such an old version of Solr have been asked before on the > list, the consensus is that you probably need to re-tune your configuration > (starting with a Solr 4 basic config) since Solr 4 is so different under > the hood from 1.x > > > On 5 December 2013 09:11, Salman Akram > wrote: > > > More info on Cpu consumption: We have a server with 32 physical cores. > > > > Same search when executed on SOLR 4.6 takes quite long and throughout > only > > uses 3% cpu (1 core). > > > > Same search when executed on SOLR 1.4.1 takes much less time and on > average > > uses around 40-50% cpu. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Salman Akram < > > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > > > > > I missed one imp piece of info. Due to large size we have indexed the > > date > > > with Common Grams. All of the words in slow search are in common grams > > and > > > when I debug it, they query is made properly with common grams. > > > > > > In debug all of the time is shown in process query time. > > > > > > Let me know what other info you need? Thanks > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Gazzarini < > agazzar...@apache.org > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could you > > give > > >> us more details > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Gazza > > >> On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram" < > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > We recently upgraded to SOLR 4.6 from SOLR 1.4.1. Overall the > > >> performance > > >> > went down for large phrase queries. On some analysis we have seen > that > > >> > 1.4.1 utilized multiple cpu cores for such queries but SOLR 4.6 is > > only > > >> > utilizing single cpu core. Any idea on what could be the reason? > > >> > > > >> > Note: We are not using SOLR Sharding. > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Regards, > > >> > > > >> > Salman Akram > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Salman Akram > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Salman Akram > > > -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
I am not using Shards. I gave more info in a previous mail but I know its a single index and what you are saying makes sense but from what I could see in 1.4.1 that it was better 'utilizing' the hardware resources available. I mean if the CPU is free then why not do multi threading (if possible of course). Not sure if that was a bug with 1.4.1 or was just a better resource utilization. However, the main issue seems to be what I referred in my last mail...Thanks! On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Daniel Collins wrote: > Not sure if you are really stating the problem here. > > If you don't use Solr sharding, (I also assume you aren't using SolrCloud), > and I'm guessing you are a single core (but can you confirm). > > As I understand Solr's logic, for a single query on a single core, that > will only use 1 thread (ignoring updates, background merges, etc). A > Lucene index (with multiple segments) has each segment read sequentially, > so a search must scan all the segments and that inherently is a > single-threaded activity. > > The fact that the search uses less CPU is not really the issue (it might > actually be a GOOD thing, it could mean the code is more efficient!), so I > would consider that a red herring. The real issue is that the search takes > longer in elapsed time. > > The usual questions apply: > > 1) how did you upgrade, did you port your config, or start from a fresh > Solr 4 config and add your custom stuff to it. > 2) Is your new index comparable to your old one, does it have more > segments, how did you fill it (bulk import or upgrade of old 1.4.1 index), > and what is your merge policy for the index? > > Upgrades from such an old version of Solr have been asked before on the > list, the consensus is that you probably need to re-tune your configuration > (starting with a Solr 4 basic config) since Solr 4 is so different under > the hood from 1.x > > > On 5 December 2013 09:11, Salman Akram > wrote: > > > More info on Cpu consumption: We have a server with 32 physical cores. > > > > Same search when executed on SOLR 4.6 takes quite long and throughout > only > > uses 3% cpu (1 core). > > > > Same search when executed on SOLR 1.4.1 takes much less time and on > average > > uses around 40-50% cpu. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Salman Akram < > > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > > > > > I missed one imp piece of info. Due to large size we have indexed the > > date > > > with Common Grams. All of the words in slow search are in common grams > > and > > > when I debug it, they query is made properly with common grams. > > > > > > In debug all of the time is shown in process query time. > > > > > > Let me know what other info you need? Thanks > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Gazzarini < > agazzar...@apache.org > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could you > > give > > >> us more details > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> Gazza > > >> On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram" < > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > We recently upgraded to SOLR 4.6 from SOLR 1.4.1. Overall the > > >> performance > > >> > went down for large phrase queries. On some analysis we have seen > that > > >> > 1.4.1 utilized multiple cpu cores for such queries but SOLR 4.6 is > > only > > >> > utilizing single cpu core. Any idea on what could be the reason? > > >> > > > >> > Note: We are not using SOLR Sharding. > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Regards, > > >> > > > >> > Salman Akram > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Salman Akram > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Salman Akram > > > -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
So I think I found one issue that somewhat explains the time difference but
not sure why this is happening. We are using Surround Query Parser. Below
is a two words query, both of them are in Common Grams list.
Query = "only be"
Here is what debug shows. I have highlighted the red part which is
different in both versions i.e. SOLR 4.6 is making it a multiphrasequery. I
am going to look into Surround Query Parser but not sure if it's an issue
with it or something else.
*SOLR 4.6 (takes 20 secs)*
{!surround}
{!surround}
MultiPhraseQuery(Contents:"(only only_be) be")
Contents:"(only only_be) be"
*SOLR 1.4.1 (takes 1 sec)*
{!surround}
{!surround}
Contents:only_be
Contents:only_be
P.S: The other issue still remains there that why is it not utilizing
multiple cpu cores.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> More info on Cpu consumption: We have a server with 32 physical cores.
>
> Same search when executed on SOLR 4.6 takes quite long and throughout only
> uses 3% cpu (1 core).
>
> Same search when executed on SOLR 1.4.1 takes much less time and on
> average uses around 40-50% cpu.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
>
>> I missed one imp piece of info. Due to large size we have indexed the
>> date with Common Grams. All of the words in slow search are in common grams
>> and when I debug it, they query is made properly with common grams.
>>
>> In debug all of the time is shown in process query time.
>>
>> Let me know what other info you need? Thanks
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Gazzarini
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could you
>>> give
>>> us more details
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Gazza
>>> On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > We recently upgraded to SOLR 4.6 from SOLR 1.4.1. Overall the
>>> performance
>>> > went down for large phrase queries. On some analysis we have seen that
>>> > 1.4.1 utilized multiple cpu cores for such queries but SOLR 4.6 is only
>>> > utilizing single cpu core. Any idea on what could be the reason?
>>> >
>>> > Note: We are not using SOLR Sharding.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Salman Akram
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Salman Akram
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Salman Akram
>
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
Not sure if you are really stating the problem here. If you don't use Solr sharding, (I also assume you aren't using SolrCloud), and I'm guessing you are a single core (but can you confirm). As I understand Solr's logic, for a single query on a single core, that will only use 1 thread (ignoring updates, background merges, etc). A Lucene index (with multiple segments) has each segment read sequentially, so a search must scan all the segments and that inherently is a single-threaded activity. The fact that the search uses less CPU is not really the issue (it might actually be a GOOD thing, it could mean the code is more efficient!), so I would consider that a red herring. The real issue is that the search takes longer in elapsed time. The usual questions apply: 1) how did you upgrade, did you port your config, or start from a fresh Solr 4 config and add your custom stuff to it. 2) Is your new index comparable to your old one, does it have more segments, how did you fill it (bulk import or upgrade of old 1.4.1 index), and what is your merge policy for the index? Upgrades from such an old version of Solr have been asked before on the list, the consensus is that you probably need to re-tune your configuration (starting with a Solr 4 basic config) since Solr 4 is so different under the hood from 1.x On 5 December 2013 09:11, Salman Akram wrote: > More info on Cpu consumption: We have a server with 32 physical cores. > > Same search when executed on SOLR 4.6 takes quite long and throughout only > uses 3% cpu (1 core). > > Same search when executed on SOLR 1.4.1 takes much less time and on average > uses around 40-50% cpu. > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Salman Akram < > salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > > > I missed one imp piece of info. Due to large size we have indexed the > date > > with Common Grams. All of the words in slow search are in common grams > and > > when I debug it, they query is made properly with common grams. > > > > In debug all of the time is shown in process query time. > > > > Let me know what other info you need? Thanks > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Gazzarini >wrote: > > > >> Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could you > give > >> us more details > >> > >> Best, > >> Gazza > >> On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram" > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > We recently upgraded to SOLR 4.6 from SOLR 1.4.1. Overall the > >> performance > >> > went down for large phrase queries. On some analysis we have seen that > >> > 1.4.1 utilized multiple cpu cores for such queries but SOLR 4.6 is > only > >> > utilizing single cpu core. Any idea on what could be the reason? > >> > > >> > Note: We are not using SOLR Sharding. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Salman Akram > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Salman Akram > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram >
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
More info on Cpu consumption: We have a server with 32 physical cores. Same search when executed on SOLR 4.6 takes quite long and throughout only uses 3% cpu (1 core). Same search when executed on SOLR 1.4.1 takes much less time and on average uses around 40-50% cpu. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Salman Akram < salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote: > I missed one imp piece of info. Due to large size we have indexed the date > with Common Grams. All of the words in slow search are in common grams and > when I debug it, they query is made properly with common grams. > > In debug all of the time is shown in process query time. > > Let me know what other info you need? Thanks > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Gazzarini > wrote: > >> Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could you give >> us more details >> >> Best, >> Gazza >> On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram" >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > We recently upgraded to SOLR 4.6 from SOLR 1.4.1. Overall the >> performance >> > went down for large phrase queries. On some analysis we have seen that >> > 1.4.1 utilized multiple cpu cores for such queries but SOLR 4.6 is only >> > utilizing single cpu core. Any idea on what could be the reason? >> > >> > Note: We are not using SOLR Sharding. >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > >> > Salman Akram >> > >> > > > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram > > -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
I missed one imp piece of info. Due to large size we have indexed the date with Common Grams. All of the words in slow search are in common grams and when I debug it, they query is made properly with common grams. In debug all of the time is shown in process query time. Let me know what other info you need? Thanks On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Gazzarini wrote: > Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could you give > us more details > > Best, > Gazza > On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram" > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We recently upgraded to SOLR 4.6 from SOLR 1.4.1. Overall the performance > > went down for large phrase queries. On some analysis we have seen that > > 1.4.1 utilized multiple cpu cores for such queries but SOLR 4.6 is only > > utilizing single cpu core. Any idea on what could be the reason? > > > > Note: We are not using SOLR Sharding. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Salman Akram > > > -- Regards, Salman Akram
Re: SOLR 4 not utilizing multi CPU cores
Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could you give us more details Best, Gazza On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram" wrote: > Hi, > > We recently upgraded to SOLR 4.6 from SOLR 1.4.1. Overall the performance > went down for large phrase queries. On some analysis we have seen that > 1.4.1 utilized multiple cpu cores for such queries but SOLR 4.6 is only > utilizing single cpu core. Any idea on what could be the reason? > > Note: We are not using SOLR Sharding. > > -- > Regards, > > Salman Akram >
