Bug ticket created: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3245
I also made test you ask with english dictionary. The results are in the ticket. Agnieszka > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan....@cominvent.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 12:54 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: solr 3.5 and indexing performance > > Hi, > > Thanks a lot for your detailed problem description. It definitely is an > error. Would you be so kind to register it as a bug ticket, including > your descriptions from this email? > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HowToContribute#JIRA_tips_.28our_issue.2BAC8 > -bug_tracker.29. Also please attach to the issue your polish hunspell > dictionaries. Then we'll try to reproduce the error. > > I wonder if this performance decrease is also seen for English > dictionaries? > > -- > Jan Høydahl, search solution architect > Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com > > On 13. mars 2012, at 16:42, Agnieszka Kukałowicz wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I did some more tests for Hunspell in solr 3.4, 4.0: > > > > Solr 3.4, full import 489017 documents: > > > > StempelPolishStemFilterFactory - 2908 seconds, 168 docs/sec > > HunspellStemFilterFactory - 3922 seconds, 125 docs/sec > > > > Solr 4.0, full import 489017 documents: > > > > StempelPolishStemFilterFactory - 3016 seconds, 162 docs/sec > > HunspellStemFilterFactory - 44580 seconds (more than 12 hours), 11 > docs/sec > > > > Server specification and Java settings are the same as before. > > > > Cheers > > Agnieszka > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Agnieszka Kukałowicz [mailto:agnieszka.kukalow...@usable.pl] > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:39 AM > >> To: 'solr-user@lucene.apache.org' > >> Subject: RE: solr 3.5 and indexing performance > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Yes, I confirmed that without Hunspell indexing has normal speed. > >> I did tests in solr 4.0 with Hunspell and PolishStemmer. > >> With StempelPolishStemFilterFactory the speed is normal. > >> > >> My schema is quit easy. For Hunspell I have one text field I copy 14 > >> text fields to: > >> > >> "<field name="text" type="text_pl_hunspell" indexed="true" > >> stored="false" multiValued="true"/>" > >> > >> > >> <copyField source="field1" dest="text"/> <copyField source="field2" > >> dest="text"/> <copyField source="field3" dest="text"/> <copyField > >> source="field4" dest="text"/> <copyField source="field5" > dest="text"/> > >> <copyField source="field6" dest="text"/> <copyField source="field7" > >> dest="text"/> <copyField source="field8" dest="text"/> <copyField > >> source="field9" dest="text"/> <copyField source="field10" > dest="text"/> > >> <copyField source="field11" dest="text"/> <copyField > source="field12" > >> dest="text"/> <copyField source="field13" dest="text"/> <copyField > >> source="field14" dest="text"/> > >> > >> The "text_pl_hunspell" configuration: > >> > >> <fieldType name="text_pl_hunspell" class="solr.TextField" > >> positionIncrementGap="100"> > >> <analyzer type="index"> > >> <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" > >> ignoreCase="true" > >> words="dict/stopwords_pl.txt" > >> enablePositionIncrements="true" > >> /> > >> <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.HunspellStemFilterFactory" > >> dictionary="dict/pl_PL.dic" affix="dict/pl_PL.aff" ignoreCase="true" > >> <!--filter class="solr.KeywordMarkerFilterFactory" > >> protected="protwords_pl.txt"/--> > >> </analyzer> > >> <analyzer type="query"> > >> <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.SynonymFilterFactory" > >> synonyms="dict/synonyms_pl.txt" ignoreCase="true" expand="true"/> > >> <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" > >> ignoreCase="true" > >> words="dict/stopwords_pl.txt" > >> enablePositionIncrements="true" > >> /> > >> <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.HunspellStemFilterFactory" > >> dictionary="dict/pl_PL.dic" affix="dict/pl_PL.aff" ignoreCase="true" > >> <filter class="solr.KeywordMarkerFilterFactory" > >> protected="dict/protwords_pl.txt"/> > >> </analyzer> > >> </fieldType> > >> > >> I use Polish dictionary (files stopwords_pl.txt, protwords_pl.txt, > >> synonyms_pl.txt are empy)- pl_PL.dic, pl_PL.aff. These are the same > >> files I used in 3.4 version. > >> > >> For Polish Stemmer the diffrence is only in definion text field: > >> > >> "<field name="text" type="text_pl" indexed="true" stored="false" > >> multiValued="true"/>" > >> > >> <fieldType name="text_pl" class="solr.TextField" > >> positionIncrementGap="100"> > >> <analyzer type="index"> > >> <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" > >> ignoreCase="true" > >> words="dict/stopwords_pl.txt" > >> enablePositionIncrements="true" > >> /> > >> <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.StempelPolishStemFilterFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.KeywordMarkerFilterFactory" > >> protected="dict/protwords_pl.txt"/> > >> </analyzer> > >> <analyzer type="query"> > >> <tokenizer class="solr.StandardTokenizerFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.SynonymFilterFactory" > >> synonyms="dict/synonyms_pl.txt" ignoreCase="true" expand="true"/> > >> <filter class="solr.StopFilterFactory" > >> ignoreCase="true" > >> words="dict/stopwords_pl.txt" > >> enablePositionIncrements="true" > >> /> > >> <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.StempelPolishStemFilterFactory"/> > >> <filter class="solr.KeywordMarkerFilterFactory" > >> protected="dict/protwords_pl.txt"/> > >> </analyzer> > >> </fieldType> > >> > >> One document has 23 fields: > >> - 14 text fields copy to one text field (above) that is only indexed > >> - 8 other indexed fields (2 strings, 2 tdates, 3 tint, 1 tfloat) The > >> size of one document is 3-4 kB. > >> So, I think this is not very complicated schema. > >> > >> My environment is: > >> - Linux, RedHat 6.2, kernel 2.6.32 > >> - 2 physical CPU Xeon 5606 (4 cores each) > >> - 32 GB RAM > >> - 2 SSD disks in RAID 0 > >> - java version: > >> > >> java -version > >> java version "1.6.0_26" > >> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_26-b03) Java HotSpot(TM) > >> 64-Bit Server VM (build 20.1-b02, mixed mode) > >> > >> - java is running with -server -Xms4096M -Xmx4096M (I tried a lot of > >> other settings and always I have the same effect) > >> - solr has default configuration except Rambuffersize (128MB) > >> - solr 4.0 from nightly builds (2012-02-21 build). > >> > >> If you need more information, please let me know. > >> I also will try to use profile to see what happens. > >> > >> Agnieszka > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan....@cominvent.com] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 9:47 AM > >>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >>> Subject: Re: solr 3.5 and indexing performance > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Have you confirmed that disabling Hunspell in solrconfig gets you > back > >>> to normal speed? > >>> What Hunspell configuration and dictionaries do you have? > >>> Can you share more about your environment and documents? > >>> Do you have a chance to run a profiler on your Solr instance? Try > i.e. > >>> VisualVM and run the profiler to see what part of the code takes up > >>> the time > >>> > http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/technotes/tools/share/jvisualvm.h > >>> t > >>> ml > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - > >>> www.cominvent.com Solr Training - www.solrtraining.com > >>> > >>> On 12. mars 2012, at 16:42, Agnieszka Kukałowicz wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi guys, > >>>> > >>>> I have hit the same problem with Hunspell. > >>>> Doing a few tests for 500 000 documents, I've got: > >>>> > >>>> Hunspell from http://code.google.com/p/lucene-hunspell/ with 3.4 > >>>> version - > >>>> 125 documents per second > >>>> Build Hunspell from 4.0 trunk - 11 documents per second. > >>>> > >>>> All the tests were made on 8 core CPU with 32 GB RAM and index on > >>>> SSD disks. > >>>> For Solr 3.5 I've tried to change JVM heap size, rambuffersize, > >>>> mergefactor but the speed of indexing was about 10 -20 documents > per > >>>> second. > >>>> > >>>> Is it possible that there is some performance bug with Solr 4.0? > >>>> According to previous post the problem exists in 3.5 version. > >>>> > >>>> Best regards > >>>> Agnieszka Kukałowicz > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: mizayah [mailto:miza...@gmail.com] > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 10:19 AM > >>>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >>>>> Subject: Re: solr 3.5 and indexing performance > >>>>> > >>>>> Ok i found it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Its becouse of Hunspell which now is in solr. Somehow when im > using > >>>>> it by myself in 3.4 it is a lot of faster then one from 3.5. > >>>>> > >>>>> Dont know about differences, but is there any way i use my old > >>> Google > >>>>> Hunspell jar? > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> View this message in context: > >>>>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr- > >>>>> 3-5-and-indexing-performance-tp3766653p3769139.html > >>>>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
