Thanks Jamie.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Check out the patch attached to
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096. I had considered making
> the method uif after I had done most of the work, it would be trivial to
> change and would probably be m
Bill,
Check out the patch attached to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096. I had considered making
the method uif after I had done most of the work, it would be trivial to
change and would probably be more aligned with not adding unexpected
changes to people that are currently using f
Can we add method=uif back when not using the JSON Facet API too?
That would help a lot of people.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Vincenzo D'Amore
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > given that solr 5.4 is finally released, is this what's more
Also can we get the capability to choose the method of faceting in the
older faceting component? I'm not looking for complete feature parity just
the ability to specify the method. As always thanks.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Can we still specify the cache implemen
Can we still specify the cache implementation for the field cache? When
this change occurred to faceting (uninverting reader vs field ) it
prevented us from moving to 5.x but if we can get the 4.x functionality
using that api we could look to port to the latest.
Jamie
On Dec 17, 2015 9:18 AM, "Yo
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> given that solr 5.4 is finally released, is this what's more stable and
> efficient version of solrcloud ?
>
> I have a website which receives many search requests. It serve normally
> about 2000 concurrent requests, but someti
This fix definitely help for facet.field over docvalues field on
mult-segment index since 5.4.
I suppose it's irrelevant to JSON Facets, non-dv field, and pre 5.4.
I can not comment about comparing perfomance of dv and non-dv fields,
because "it depends" (с) benchmarking and profiler are the only a
Same question here
Wondering if faceting performance is fixed and how to take advantage of it ?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Vincenzo D'Amore
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> given that solr 5.4 is finally released, is this what's more stable and
> efficient version of solrcloud ?
>
> I have a webs
Hi all,
given that solr 5.4 is finally released, is this what's more stable and
efficient version of solrcloud ?
I have a website which receives many search requests. It serve normally
about 2000 concurrent requests, but sometime there are peak from 4000 to
1 requests in few seconds.
On Janu
Uwe, it's good to know! I mean that you've recovered. Take care!
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Uwe Reh wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. I had an ugly flu.
>
> SOLR-7730 seems to work fine. Using docValues with Solr
> 5.4.0-2015-09-29_08-29-55 1705813 makes my faceted queries fast again.
> (90ms v
Sorry for the delay. I had an ugly flu.
SOLR-7730 seems to work fine. Using docValues with Solr
5.4.0-2015-09-29_08-29-55 1705813 makes my faceted queries fast again.
(90ms vs. 2ms) :-)
Thanks
Uwe
Am 27.09.2015 um 20:32 schrieb Mikhail Khludnev:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Uwe Re
On Sun, 2015-09-27 at 14:47 +0200, Uwe Reh wrote:
> Like Walter Underwood wrote, in technical sense faceting on authors
> isn't a good idea.
In a technical sense, there is no good or bad about faceting on
high-cardinality fields in Solr. The faceting code is fairly efficient
(modulo the newly dis
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Uwe Reh wrote:
> When 5.4 with SOLR-7730 will be released, I will start to use docValues.
> Going this way, seems more straight forward to me.
Sure. Giving your answers docValues facets has a really good chance to
perform in your index after SOLR-7730. It's real
Hi Mikhail,
is this, what you've requested?
lookups: 34084
hits: 34067
hitratio: 1
inserts: 34
evictions: 0
...
item_author_facet:
{field=author_facet,memSize=104189615,tindexSize=789195,time=16901,phase1=16534,nTerms=3989851,bigTerms=0,termInstances=16214154,uses=4065}
item_topic_facet:
{fiel
Hi Mikhail,
thanks for the hint, and "no" it wasn't obvious for me. :-)
But I think, for us it's better to remain at 4.10.3 and observe the
evolution of SOLR-8096. When 5.4 with SOLR-7730 will be released, I will
start to use docValues. Going this way, seems more straight forward to me.
Uwe
Uwe,
As a workaround, can you add facet.threads=Ncores to count fields in
parallel?
Also, setting fcs method for single value fields runs per segment faceting
in parallel.
Of course, fields which has small number of terms are beneficial from enum
method.
Excuse me if it's obvious.
https://cwiki.ap
Uwe,
Would you mind to provide a few details about your case?
I wonder about number of bigterms and other stats as well at 'author' field
(ant other most expensive facets). It looks like log rows:
Sep 13, 2011 2:51:53 PM org.apache.solr.request.UnInvertedField uninvert
INFO: UnInverted multi-value
Clear !
Now I understand the current situation.
Hope the issue will be fixed soon and the conference is recorded,
good luck!
Cheers
2015-09-25 15:22 GMT+01:00 Yonik Seeley :
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Alessandro Benedetti
> wrote:
> >There is an undocumented "method" parameter - I n
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Alessandro Benedetti
wrote:
>There is an undocumented "method" parameter - I need to enable that to
>
>> allow switching between the docvalues approach and the UnInvertedField
>> approach.
>>
>
> Only to clarify, please correct me Yonik if my understanding is w
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Uwe Reh wrote:
> Am 25.09.2015 um 05:16 schrieb Yonik Seeley:
>>
>> I did some performance benchmarks and opened an issue. It's bad.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096
>
>
> Hi Yonik,
> thanks a lot for your investigation.
> Using the JSON Facet AP
Am 25.09.2015 um 05:16 schrieb Yonik Seeley:
I did some performance benchmarks and opened an issue. It's bad.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096
Hi Yonik,
thanks a lot for your investigation.
Using the JSON Facet API is fast and seems to be a usable workaround for
new application
There is an undocumented "method" parameter - I need to enable that to
> allow switching between the docvalues approach and the UnInvertedField
> approach.
>
Only to clarify, please correct me Yonik if my understanding is wrong or
outdated :
To calculate facets, without going into the algorith
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Indeed. Use of the fieldValueCache (UnInvertedField) was secretly
> removed as part of LUCENE-5666, causing these performance regressions.
I did some performance benchmarks and opened an issue. It's bad.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/brows
Can we add it back with a parameter at least ?
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
> On Sep 24, 2015, at 8:58 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Uwe Reh wrote:
>> our bibliographic index (~20M entries) runs fine with Solr 4.10.3
>> With Solr 5.3 faceted searching is constant
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Alessandro Benedetti
wrote:
> Yonik, I am really excited about the Json faceting module.
> I find it really interesting.
> Is there any pros/cons in using them, or it's definitely the "approach of
> the future" ?
Thanks!
The cons to the new stuff is that it does
Yonik, I am really excited about the Json faceting module.
I find it really interesting.
Is there any pros/cons in using them, or it's definitely the "approach of
the future" ?
I saw your benchmarks and seems impressive.
I have not read all the topic in details, just briefly, but is Json
faceting
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Uwe Reh wrote:
> our bibliographic index (~20M entries) runs fine with Solr 4.10.3
> With Solr 5.3 faceted searching is constantly incredibly slow (~ 20 seconds)
[...]
>
> The 'fieldValueCache' seems to be unused (no inserts nor lookups) in Solr
> 5.3. In Solr 4.10
Uwe
Unfortunately fieldValueCache was dropped there
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/commit/fca4c22da81447867533fb28c0f06150cdc2eb9d#diff-5ac9dc7b128b4dd99b764060759222b2R428
However, I see that it's still available in new JSON facets (thus, you need
to amend your app).
Otherwise, you can post
Am 23.09.2015 um 10:02 schrieb Mikhail Khludnev:
...
Accelerating non-DV facets is not so clear so far. Please show profiler
snapshot for non-DV facets if you wish to go this way.
Hi,
attached is a visualvm profile to several times a simplified query (just
one facet):
http://xyz/solr/hebis/s
Am 22.09.2015 um 18:10 schrieb Walter Underwood:
Faceting on an author field is almost always a bad idea. Or at least a slow,
expensive idea.
Hi Wunder,
n a technical context, the 'author'-facet may be suboptimal. In our
businesses (library services) it's a core feature.
Yes the facet is expe
Despite docvalues provide NRT faceting with a great performance (since
5.4), enum method is still really important for edge cases (many docs,
small num of terms).
Also, Solr's UnIvertedField had a really smart BigTerms strategy, when
fattest terms were counted by enum and remaining ones with fc. Do
Well done Mikhail,
curious to see the performance!
Apart the disk usage ( of course building docValues will cost more space),
taking in consideration the Field cardinality, in the past when the field
cardinality was low ( few unique values in the field), the enum approach
was suggested ( so DocVal
Uwe,
I'm sorry for confusion https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7730
goes in 5.4 only. Hence, to get fast DV facets you need to apply patch
(it's pretty small).
Accelerating non-DV facets is not so clear so far. Please show profiler
snapshot for non-DV facets if you wish to go this way.
Faceting on an author field is almost always a bad idea. Or at least a slow,
expensive idea.
Faceting makes big in-memory lists. More values, bigger lists. An author field
usually has many, many values, so you will need a lot of memory.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://obser
Can you also try testing with one facet at a time and see if we hit a
particular facet that is slow?
Joel Bernstein
http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Uwe Reh wrote:
> The exact version as shown by the UI is:
> - solr-impl 5.3.0 1696229 - noble - 2015-08-17 17:10:4
virtualvm_snapshot_solr5.3_facetting.csv
Description: MS-Excel spreadsheet
The exact version as shown by the UI is:
- solr-impl 5.3.0 1696229 - noble - 2015-08-17 17:10:43
- lucene-impl 5.3.0 1696229 - noble - 2015-08-17 16:59:03
Unfortunately my skills in debugging are limited. So I'm not sure about
a 'deeper caller stack'.
Did you mean the attached snapshot from Vi
It's quite strange
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7730 significantly optimized DV
facets at 5.3.0 exactly by avoiding FileInfo merge.
Would you mind to provide deeper caller stack for
org.apache.lucene.index.FileInfos.MultibleFields.getMergedFieldInfos()?
Or a time spend in SlowComposit
here is my try to detect with VirtualVM some hot spots with VirtualVM.
Enviroment:
A newly started node with ~15 times the query:
http://yxz/solr/hebis/select/?q=darwin&facet=true&facet.mincount=1&facet.limit=30&facet.field=material_access&facet.field=department_3&facet.field=rvk_facet&facet.fie
Am 22.09.2015 um 02:12 schrieb Joel Bernstein:
Have you looked at your Solr instance with a cpu profiler like YourKit? It
would be useful to see the hotspots which should be really obvious with 20
second response times.
No, until now I have done no profiling. I thought the unused
fieldValueCac
Have you looked at your Solr instance with a cpu profiler like YourKit? It
would be useful to see the hotspots which should be really obvious with 20
second response times.
Also are you running in distributed mode or on a single Solr instance?
Joel Bernstein
http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
On Mon,
Am 21.09.2015 um 15:16 schrieb Shalin Shekhar Mangar:
Can you post your complete facet request as well as the schema
definition of the field on which you are faceting?
Query:
http://yxz/solr/hebis/select/?q=darwin&facet=true&facet.mincount=1&facet.limit=30&facet.field=material_access&facet.fi
Can you post your complete facet request as well as the schema
definition of the field on which you are faceting?
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Uwe Reh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> our bibliographic index (~20M entries) runs fine with Solr 4.10.3
> With Solr 5.3 faceted searching is constantly incredibly
43 matches
Mail list logo
