The original question though is about performance issue in the Searcher.
How would you improve that?

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 4:37 PM Walter Underwood <wun...@wunderwood.org>
wrote:

> The original question is for a three-node Solr Cloud cluster with
> continuous updates.
> Optimize in this configuration won’t help, it will just cause expensive
> merges later.
>
> I would recommend updating from Solr 4.4. that is a very early release for
> Solr Cloud. We saw dramatic speedups in indexing with 6.x. In early
> releases, the
> replicas actually did more indexing work than the leader.
>
> wunder
> Walter Underwood
> wun...@wunderwood.org
> http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)
>
> > On Oct 28, 2018, at 2:13 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, if you optimize on the master you'll inevitably copy the entire
> > index to each of the slaves. Consuming that much network bandwidth can
> > be A Bad Thing.
> >
> > Here's the background for Walter's comment:
> >
> https://lucidworks.com/2017/10/13/segment-merging-deleted-documents-optimize-may-bad/
> >
> > Solr 7.5 is much better about this:
> >
> https://lucidworks.com/2018/06/20/solr-and-optimizing-your-index-take-ii/
> >
> > Even with the improvements in Solr 7.5, optimize is still a very
> > expensive operation and unless you've measured and can _prove_ it's
> > beneficial enough to be worth the cost you should avoid it.
> >
> > Best,
> > Erick
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 1:51 PM Parag Shah <parags.li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> What would you do if your performance is degrading?
> >>
> >> I am not suggesting doing this for a serving index. Only one at the
> Master,
> >> which ones optimized gets replicated. Am I missing something here?
> >>
> >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:05 AM Walter Underwood <
> wun...@wunderwood.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Do not run optimize (force merge) unless you really understand the
> >>> downside.
> >>>
> >>> If you are continually adding and deleting documents, you really do not
> >>> want
> >>> to run optimize.
> >>>
> >>> wunder
> >>> Walter Underwood
> >>> wun...@wunderwood.org
> >>> http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)
> >>>
> >>>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 9:24 AM, Parag Shah <parags.li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Mugeesh,
> >>>>
> >>>>   Have you tried optimizing indexes to see if performance improves? It
> >>> is
> >>>> well known that over time as indexing goes on lucene creates more
> >>> segments
> >>>> which will be  searched over and hence take longer. Merging happens
> >>>> constantly but continuous indexing will still introduce smaller
> segments
> >>>> all the time. Have your tried running "optimize" periodically. Is it
> >>>> something that you can afford to run? If you have a Master-Slave setup
> >>> for
> >>>> Indexer v/s searchers, you can replicate on optimize in the Master,
> >>> thereby
> >>>> removing the optimize load on the searchers, but replicate to the
> >>> searcher
> >>>> periodically. That might help with reducing latency. Optimize merges
> >>>> segments and hence creates a more compact index that is faster to
> search.
> >>>> It may involve some higher latency temporarily right after the
> >>> replication,
> >>>> but will go away soon after in-memory caches are full.
> >>>>
> >>>>   What is the search count/sec you are seeing?
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>> Parag
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 2:02 AM Mugeesh Husain <muge...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are running 3 node solr cloud(4.4) in our production
> infrastructure,
> >>> We
> >>>>> recently moved our SOLR server host softlayer to digital ocean server
> >>> with
> >>>>> same configuration as production.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now we are facing some slowness in the searcher when we index
> document,
> >>>>> when
> >>>>> we stop indexing then searches is fine, while adding document then it
> >>>>> become
> >>>>> slow. one of solr server we are indexing other 2 for searching the
> >>> request.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am just wondering what was the reason searches become slow while
> >>> indexing
> >>>>> even we are using same configuration as we had in prod?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> at the time we are pushing 500 document at a time, this processing is
> >>>>> continuously running(adding & deleting)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> these are the indexing logs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 65497339 [http-apr-8980-exec-45] INFO
> >>>>> org.apache.solr.update.processor.LogUpdateProcessor  – [rn0]
> >>> webapp=/solr
> >>>>> path=/update
> >>>>> params={distrib.from=
> >>>>>
> >>>
> http://solrhost:8980/solr/rn0/&update.distrib=FROMLEADER&wt=javabin&version=2&update.chain=dedupe
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> {add=[E4751FCCE977BAC7 (1612655281518411776), 8E712AD1BE76AB63
> >>>>> (1612655281527848960), 789AA5D0FB149A37 (1612655281538334720),
> >>>>> B4F3AA526506F6B7 (1612655281553014784), A9F29F556F6CD1C8
> >>>>> (1612655281566646272), 8D15813305BF7417 (1612655281584472064),
> >>>>> DD13CFA12973E85B (1612655281596006400), 3C93BDBA5DFDE3B3
> >>>>> (1612655281613832192), 96981A0785BFC9BF (1612655281625366528),
> >>>>> D1E52788A466E484 (1612655281636900864)]} 0 9
> >>>>> 65497459 [http-apr-8980-exec-22] INFO
> >>>>> org.apache.solr.update.processor.LogUpdateProcessor  – [rn0]
> >>> webapp=/solr
> >>>>> path=/update
> >>>>> params={distrib.from=
> >>>>>
> >>>
> http://solrhost:8980/solr/rn0/&update.distrib=FROMLEADER&wt=javabin&version=2&update.chain=dedupe
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> {add=[D8AA2E196967D241 (1612655281649483776), E73420772E3235B7
> >>>>> (1612655281666260992), DFDCF1F8325A3EF6 (1612655281680941056),
> >>>>> 1B10EF90E7C3695F (1612655281689329664), 51CBD7F59644A718
> >>>>> (1612655281699815424), 1D31EF403AF13E04 (1612655281714495488),
> >>>>> 68E1DC3A614B7269 (1612655281723932672), F9BF6A3CF89D74FB
> >>>>> (1612655281737564160), 419E017E1F360EB6 (1612655281749098496),
> >>>>> 50EF977E5E873065 (1612655281759584256)]} 0 9
> >>>>> 65497572 [http-apr-8980-exec-40] INFO
> >>>>> org.apache.solr.update.processor.LogUpdateProcessor  – [rn0]
> >>> webapp=/solr
> >>>>> path=/update
> >>>>> params={distrib.from=
> >>>>>
> >>>
> http://solrhost:8980/solr/rn0/&update.distrib=FROMLEADER&wt=javabin&version=2&update.chain=dedupe
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> {add=[B63AD0671A5E57B9 (1612655281772167168), 00B8A4CCFABFA1AC
> >>>>> (1612655281784750080), 9C89A1516C9166E6 (1612655281798381568),
> >>>>> 9322E17ECEAADE66 (1612655281803624448), C6DDB4BF8E94DE6B
> >>>>> (1612655281814110208), DAA49178A5E74285 (1612655281830887424),
> >>>>> 829C2AE38A3E78E4 (1612655281845567488), 4C7B19756D8E4208
> >>>>> (1612655281859198976), BE0F7354DC30164C (1612655281869684736),
> >>>>> 59C4A764BB50B13B (1612655281880170496)]} 0 9
> >>>>> 65497724 [http-apr-8980-exec-31] INFO
> >>>>> org.apache.solr.update.processor.LogUpdateProcessor  – [rn0]
> >>> webapp=/solr
> >>>>> path=/update
> >>>>> params={distrib.from=
> >>>>>
> >>>
> http://solrhost:8980/solr/rn0/&update.distrib=FROMLEADER&wt=javabin&version=2&update.chain=dedupe
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> {add=[1F694F99367D7CE1 (1612655281895899136), 2AEAAF67A6893ABE
> >>>>> (1612655281911627776), 81E72DC36C7A9EBC (1612655281926307840),
> >>>>> AA71BD9B23548E6D (1612655281939939328), 359E8C4C6EC72AFA
> >>>>> (1612655281954619392), 7FEB6C65A3E23311 (1612655281972445184),
> >>>>> 9B5ED0BE7AFDD1D0 (1612655281991319552), 99FE8958F6ED8B91
> >>>>> (1612655282009145344), 2BDC61DC4038E19F (1612655282023825408),
> >>>>> 5131AEC4B87FBFE9 (1612655282037456896)]} 0 10
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

Reply via email to