[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9535?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Adrien Grand updated LUCENE-9535:
---------------------------------
    Attachment: cpu_profile.svg
        Status: Open  (was: Open)

Here's the CPU profile I got when indexing 1kB docs.

> Investigate recent indexing slowdown for wikimedium documents
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LUCENE-9535
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-9535
>             Project: Lucene - Core
>          Issue Type: Task
>            Reporter: Adrien Grand
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: cpu_profile.svg
>
>
> Nightly benchmarks report a ~10% slowdown for 1kB documents as of September 
> 9th: [http://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/lucenebench/indexing.html].
> On that day, we added stored fields in DWPT accounting (LUCENE-9511), so I 
> first thought this could be due to smaller flushed segments and more merging, 
> but I still wonder whether there's something else. The benchmark runs with 
> 8GB of heap, 2GB of RAM buffer and 36 indexing threads. So it's about 2GB/36 
> = 57MB of RAM buffer per thread in the worst-case scenario that all DWPTs get 
> full at the same time. Stored fields account for about 0.7MB of memory, or 1% 
> of the indexing buffer size. How can a 1% reduction of buffering capacity 
> explain a 10% indexing slowdown? I looked into this further by running 
> indexing benchmarks locally with 8 indexing threads and 128MB of indexing 
> buffer memory, which would make this issue even more apparent if the smaller 
> RAM buffer was the cause, but I'm not seeing a regression and actually I'm 
> seeing similar number of flushes when I disabled memory accounting for stored 
> fields.
> I ran indexing under a profiler to see whether something else could cause 
> this slowdown, e.g. slow implementations of ramBytesUsed on stored fields 
> writers, but nothing surprising showed up and the profile looked just like I 
> would have expected.
> Another question I have is why the 4kB benchmark is not affected at all.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@lucene.apache.org

Reply via email to