just looking for hints where to look for...

We were testing single threaded ingest rate on solr, trunk version on
atypical collection (a lot of small documents), and we noticed
something we are not able to explain.

Setup:
We use defaults for index settings, windows 64 bit, jdk 7 U2. on SSD,
machine with enough memory and 8 cores.   Schema has 5 stored fields,
4 of them indexed no positions no norms.
Average net document size (optimized index size / number of documents)
is around 100 bytes.

On a test with 40 Mio document:
- we had update ingest rate  on first 4,4Mio documents @  incredible
34k records / second...
- then it dropped, suddenly to 20k records per second and this rate
remained stable (variance 1k) until...
- we hit 13Mio, where ingest rate dropped again really hard, from one
instant in time to another to 10k records per second.

it stayed there until we reached the end @40Mio (slightly reducing, to
ca 9k, but this is not long enough to see trend).

Nothing unusual happening with jvm memory ( tooth-saw  200- 450M fully
regular). CPU in turn was  following the ingest rate trend, inicating
that we were waiting on something. No searches , no commits, nothing.

autoCommit was turned off. Updates were streaming directly from the database.

-----
I did not expect something like this, knowing lucene merges in
background. Also, having such sudden drops in ingest rate is
indicative that we are not leaking something. (drop would have been
much more gradual). It is some caches, but why two really significant
drops? 33k/sec to 20k and than to 10k... We would love to keep it  @34
k/second :)

I am not really acquainted with the new MergePolicy and flushing
settings, but I suspect this is something there we could tweak.

Could it be windows is somehow, hmm, quirky with solr default
directory on win64/jvm (I think it is MMAP by default)... We did not
saturate IO with such a small documents I guess, It is a just couple
of Gig over 1-2 hours.

All in all, it works good, but is having such hard update ingest rate
drops normal?

Thanks,
eks.

Reply via email to