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 <erickerick...@gmail.com> 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 <webster.ho...@sial.com> > 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 <webster.ho...@sial.com> > > 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 <webster.ho...@sial.com> > >> 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, > >>>> > "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 <ysee...@gmail.com> > >>>> 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 <ysee...@gmail.com > > > >>>> > 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: > >>>> > > >>> copperiinitratehemipentahydrate2325919004194 430.61722 > >>>> > > >>> 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. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > -- > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > 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. > >>>> > > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > -- > > > > > > 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. > -- 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.
