gt;
>
>
>
> Can you help me why Iam getting this error.
>
> PFA of the same error log and the solr-spring.xml files.
>
> Regards,
> Lokanadham Ganta
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Erick Erickson [via Lucene]" <
> ml-node+s472066n4101220.
kanadham Ganta
- Original Message -
From: "Erick Erickson [via Lucene]"
To: "Loka"
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:14:26 PM
Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers ERROR
That's a fine place to start. This form:
${solr.autoCommit.maxTime:15000}
j
:15000}
>false
>
>
>
>
>
>${solr.autoSoftCommit.maxTime:1}
>
>
>
>
> Please confirm me.
>
> But how can I check how much autowarming that Iam doing, as of now I have
> set the maxWarmingSearchers as 2, should
false
Is the above one fine?
Regards,
Lokanadham Ganta
- Original Message -
From: "Lokanadham Ganta"
To: "Erick Erickson [via Lucene]"
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 6:33:20 PM
Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers ERROR
Erickson,
T
- Original Message -
From: "Erick Erickson [via Lucene]"
To: "Loka"
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 6:07:12 PM
Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers ERROR
Where did you get that syntax? I've never seen that before.
What you want to configure is the "ma
ing wrong.
>
> Regards,
> Lokanadham Ganta
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Erick Erickson [via Lucene]" <
> ml-node+s472066n4100924...@n3.nabble.com>
> To: "Loka"
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013
Erick Erickson [via Lucene]"
To: "Loka"
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 8:38:17 PM
Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers ERROR
CommitWithin is either configured in solrconfig.xml for the
or tags as the maxTime tag. I
recommend you do use this.
The other way you ca
CommitWithin is either configured in solrconfig.xml for the
or tags as the maxTime tag. I
recommend you do use this.
The other way you can do it is if you're using SolrJ, one of the
forms of the server.add() method takes a number of milliseconds
to force a commit.
You really, really do NOT want
Hi Naveen,
Iam also getting the similar problem where I do not know how to use the
commitWithin Tag, can you help me how to use commitWithin Tag. can you give
me the example
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/exceeded-limit-of-maxWarmingSearchers-ERROR-tp3252844
I ended up having to do a mathematical increase of the delay
because the indexing eventually would outstrip the static value I set and
crash the maxWarmingSearchers.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/exceeded-limit-of-maxWarmingSearchers-tp489803p4089699.htm
I really think this is the wrong approach.
bq: We do a commit on every update, but updates are very infrequent
I doubt this is actually true. You may think it is, but you just don't get
more than 8 warming searchers in the situation you describe. Fix the
_real_ problem here.
Do what Hoss said. L
*sleep 1.5 seconds* command per file
...FWIW I found in trying to cfindex 35K documents that if I did a
cfdirectory list and added a delay per file indexed (and a cfsetting with a
REALLY long timeout), CPU use dropped from 58% to ~19% and I got much
farther without the dread maxWarmingSearchers=4 e
Hi Nagendra,
Thanks a lot .. i will start working on NRT today.. meanwhile old settings
(increased warmSearcher in Master) have not given me trouble till now ..
but NRT will be more suitable to us ... Will work on that one and will
analyze the performance and share with you.
Thanks
Naveen
2011/
Naveen:
See below:
*NRT with Apache Solr 3.3 and RankingAlgorithm does need a commit for a
document to become searchable*. Any document that you add through update
becomes immediately searchable. So no need to commit from within your
update client code. Since there is no commit, the cache does
Nagendra
You wrote,
Naveen:
*NRT with Apache Solr 3.3 and RankingAlgorithm does need a commit for a
document to become searchable*. Any document that you add through update
becomes immediately searchable. So no need to commit from within your
update client code. Since there is no commit, the c
Bill:
I did look at Marks performance tests. Looks very interesting.
Here is the Apacle Solr 3.3 with RankingAlgorithm NRT performance:
http://solr-ra.tgels.com/wiki/en/Near_Real_Time_Search_ver_3.x
Regards
- Nagendra Nagarajayya
http://solr-ra.tgels.org
http://rankingalgorithm.tgels.org
On
I understand.
Have you looked at Mark's patch? From his performance tests, it looks
pretty good.
When would RA work better?
Bill
On 8/14/11 8:40 PM, "Nagendra Nagarajayya"
wrote:
>Bill:
>
>The technical details of the NRT implementation in Apache Solr with
>RankingAlgorithm (SOLR-RA) is avai
Bill:
The technical details of the NRT implementation in Apache Solr with
RankingAlgorithm (SOLR-RA) is available here:
http://solr-ra.tgels.com/papers/NRT_Solr_RankingAlgorithm.pdf
(Some changes for Solr 3.x, but for most it is as above)
Regarding support for 4.0 trunk, should happen someti
OK,
I'll ask the elephant in the room.
What is the difference between the new UpdateHandler from Mark and the
SOLR-RA?
The UpdateHandler works with 4.0 does SOLR-RA work with 4.0 trunk?
Pros/Cons?
On 8/14/11 8:10 PM, "Nagendra Nagarajayya"
wrote:
>Naveen:
>
>NRT with Apache Solr 3.3 and Ra
Naveen:
NRT with Apache Solr 3.3 and RankingAlgorithm does need a commit for a
document to become searchable. Any document that you add through update
becomes immediately searchable. So no need to commit from within your
update client code. Since there is no commit, the cache does not have
It's worth noting that the fast commit rate is only an indirect part
of the issue you're seeing. As the error comes from cache warming - a
consequence of committing, it's not the fault of commiting directly.
It's well worth having a good close look at exactly what you're caches
are doing when they
It's somewhat confusing - I'll straighten it out though. I left the issue open
to keep me from taking forever to doc it - hasn't helped much yet - but maybe
later today...
On Aug 14, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Ah, thanks, Mark... I must have been looking at the wrong JIRAs.
>
>
Hi Mark/Erick/Nagendra,
I was not very confident about NRT at that point of time, when we started
project almost 1 year ago, definitely i would try NRT and see the
performance.
The current requirement was working fine till we were using commitWithin 10
millisecs in the XMLDocument which we were p
Ah, thanks, Mark... I must have been looking at the wrong JIRAs.
Erick
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
>
> On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
>
>> You either have to go to near real time (NRT), which is under
>> development, but not committed to trunk yet
>
>
Naveen:
You should try NRT with Apache Solr 3.3 and RankingAlgorithm. You can
update 10,000 documents / sec while also concurrently searching. You can
set commit freq to about 15 mins or as desired. The 10,000 document
update performance is with the MBArtists index on a dual core Linux
syste
On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> You either have to go to near real time (NRT), which is under
> development, but not committed to trunk yet
NRT support is committed to trunk.
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
You either have to go to near real time (NRT), which is under
development, but not committed to trunk yet or just stop
warming up searchers and let the first user to open a searcher
pay the penalty for warmup, (useColdSearchers as I remember).
Although I'd also ask whether this is a reasonable req
oooh. my queryResultCache has a warmupTime from 54000 => ~1 Minute
any suggestions ??
-
--- System
One Server, 12 GB RAM, 2 Solr Instances, 7 Cores,
1 Core with 31 Million Documents other Cores < 100.000
- Solr1 for Sea
my filterCache has a warmupTime from ~6000 ... but my config is like this:
LRU Cache(maxSize=3000, initialSize=50, autowarmCount=50 ...)
should i set maxSize to 50 or similar value ?
-
--- System
One Server, 12 GB RAM, 2 S
i start a commit on "searcher"-Core with:
.../core/update?commit=true&waitFlush=false
-
--- System
One Server, 12 GB RAM, 2 Solr Instances, 7 Cores,
1 Core with 31 Million Documents other Cores < 100.000
- Solr1 for Search
2009/10/23 Teruhiko Kurosaka :
> I'm trying to stress-test solr (nightly build of 2009-10-12) using JMeter.
> I set up JMeter to post pod_other.xml, then hd.xml, then commit.xml that only
> has a line "", 100 times.
> Solr instance runs on a multi-core system.
>
> Solr didn't complian when the num
From: Shalin Shekhar Mangar
Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 10:35 AM
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:23 AM, mahendra mahendra <
mahendra_featu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have scheduled Incremental indexi
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:23 AM, mahendra mahendra <
mahendra_featu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have scheduled Incremental indexing to run for every 2 min. Some times
> due to more number of records the first instance of the incremental couldn't
> complete before second instance start. This
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
I'd say: "Make sure you don't commit more frequently than the time it takes for your
searcher to warm up", or else you risk searcher overlap and pile-up.
cool. i found a place in our code where we were committing the same
thing twice in very rapid succession. fingers
ukman
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2009 11:36:13 AM
Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> Jon,
>
> If you can, don't commit on every update and that should help or fully solve
> your problem.
is there any sort of
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Jon,
If you can, don't commit on every update and that should help or fully solve
your problem.
is there any sort of heuristic or formula i can apply that can tell me
when to commit? put it in a cron job and fire it once per hour?
there are certain updates that are
009 1:09:00 PM
> Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers
>
> Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> > That should be fine (but apparently isn't), as long as you don't have some
> very slow machine or if your caches are are large and configured to copy a
> lot
>
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
That should be fine (but apparently isn't), as long as you don't have some very
slow machine or if your caches are are large and configured to copy a lot of
data on commit.
this is becoming more and more problematic. we have periods where we
get 10 of these exceptio
: Jon Drukman
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:54:06 PM
> Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers
>
> Yonik Seeley wrote:
> > I'd advise setting it to a very low limit (like 2) and committing less
> > often. Once you ge
Yonik Seeley wrote:
I'd advise setting it to a very low limit (like 2) and committing less
often. Once you get too many overlapping searchers, things will slow
to a crawl and that will just cause more to pile up.
The root cause is simply too many commits in conjunction with warming
too long. I
I'd advise setting it to a very low limit (like 2) and committing less
often. Once you get too many overlapping searchers, things will slow
to a crawl and that will just cause more to pile up.
The root cause is simply too many commits in conjunction with warming
too long. If you are using a dev
commited; there is no actual commit operation.
-Original Message-
From: Walter Underwood [mailto:wunderw...@netflix.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:45 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers=4
It sounds like you need real-time search
Also, if you are using solr 1.3, solr 1.4 will reopen readers rather
than open them again. This means only changed segments have to be
reloaded. If you turn off all the caches and use a bit higher merge
factor, maybe a low max merge docs, you can prob get things a lot
quicker. There will still
It sounds like you need real-time search, where documents are
available in the next query. Solr doesn't do that.
That is a pretty rare feature and must be designed in at the start.
The usual workaround is to have a main index plus a small delta
index and search both. Deletes have to be handled se
will not be part of the
query results.
> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:09:47 -0500
> From: markrmil...@gmail.com
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers=4
>
> chip correra wrote:
> > We’re using Solr as a backend indexe
chip correra wrote:
We’re using Solr as a backend indexer/search engine to support an AJAX
based consumer application. Basically, when users of our system create
“Documents” in our product, we commit right away, because we want to
immediately re-query and get counts back from Solr to
: SEVERE: org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Error opening new searcher.
: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers=8, try again later.
: Our server is not even in public use yet, it's serving maybe one query every
: second, or less. I don't understand what could be causing this.
that warning i
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:46 AM, Jon Drukman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Most of them say warmupTime=0. It ranges from 0 to 37. I hope that is
> msec and not seconds!!
>
Correct, that is in milliseconds.
--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
Feak, Todd wrote:
Have you looked at how long your warm up is taking?
If it's taking longer to warm up a searcher then it does for you to do
an update, you will be behind the curve and eventually run into this no
matter how big that number.
Most of them say warmupTime=0. It ranges from 0 to
Have you looked at how long your warm up is taking?
If it's taking longer to warm up a searcher then it does for you to do
an update, you will be behind the curve and eventually run into this no
matter how big that number.
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
: and I though a true master-slave setup would be overkill. Is it really
: problematic to run queries on instances that aren't auto-warmed? Sounds like
it really depends on your usecases and what you consider "problematic" ...
there's no inherent problem in having queries hit an unwarmed index, i
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, my plan was to two have two instances
both running as "masters" although one would only be a warm-standby for
querying purposes. I just wanted a little bit of redundancy for the moment
and I though a true master-slave setup would be overkill. Is it really
probl
: On a solr instance where I am in the process of indexing moderately large
: number of documents (300K+). There is no querying of the index taking place
: at all.
: I don't understand what operations are causing new searchers to warm, or how
: to stop them from doing so. I'd be happy to provide
On May 9, 2008, at 7:33 PM, Sasha Voynow wrote:
Is it generally better to handle
batching your commits programmatically on the "client" side rather
than
relying on auto-commit?
the time based auto-commit is useful if you are indexing from multiple
clients to a single server. Rather then
It happened without auto-commit. Although I would like to be able to use a
reasonably infrequent autocommit setting. Is it generally better to handle
batching your commits programmatically on the "client" side rather than
relying on auto-commit?As far as post* hooks. I will comment out a post
optim
t; From: Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, May 9, 2008 7:18:03 PM
> Subject: Re: exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers
>
> Sasha,
>
> Do you have postCommit or postOptimize hooks enabled? Are you sending
> commits
&
Sasha,
Do you have postCommit or postOptimize hooks enabled? Are you sending commits
or have autoCommit on?
My suggestions:
- comment out post* hooks
- do not send a commit until you are done (or you can just optimize at the end)
- disable autoCommit
If there is anything else that could trigg
57 matches
Mail list logo
