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 <danwcoll...@gmail.com>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 > <salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net>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 <danwcoll...@gmail.com > > >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 > > > <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 < > > > 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
