How do I check that in solr? Can anyone share link on implementation of threads in solr?
On Fri 16 Aug, 2019, 4:52 PM Jörn Franke, <jornfra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is your custom query parser multithreaded and leverages all cores? > > > Am 16.08.2019 um 13:12 schrieb Vignan Malyala <dsmsvig...@gmail.com>: > > > > I want response time below 3 seconds. > > And fyi I'm already using 32 cores. > > My cache is already full too and obviously same requests don't occur in > my > > case. > > > > > >> On Fri 16 Aug, 2019, 11:47 AM Jörn Franke, <jornfra...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> How much response time do you require? > >> I think you have to solve the issue in your code by introducing higher > >> parallelism during calculation and potentially more cores. > >> > >> Maybe you can also precalculate what you do, cache it and use during > >> request the precalculated values. > >> > >>> Am 16.08.2019 um 05:08 schrieb Vignan Malyala <dsmsvig...@gmail.com>: > >>> > >>> Hi > >>> Any solution for this? Taking around 50 seconds to get response. > >>> > >>>> On Mon 12 Aug, 2019, 3:28 PM Vignan Malyala, <dsmsvig...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Doug / Walter, > >>>> > >>>> I'm just using this methodology. > >>>> PFB link of my sample code. > >>>> https://github.com/saaay71/solr-vector-scoring > >>>> > >>>> The only issue is speed of response for 1M records. > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 12:24 AM Walter Underwood < > >> wun...@wunderwood.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> tf.idf was invented because cosine similarity is too much > computation. > >>>>> tf.idf gives similar results much, much faster than cosine distance. > >>>>> > >>>>> I would expect cosine similarity to be slow. I would also expect > >>>>> retrieving 1 million records to be slow. Doing both of those in one > >> minute > >>>>> is pretty good. > >>>>> > >>>>> As Kernighan and Paugher said in 1978, "Don’t diddle code to make it > >>>>> faster—find a better algorithm.” > >>>>> > >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Programming_Style > >>>>> > >>>>> wunder > >>>>> Walter Underwood > >>>>> wun...@wunderwood.org > >>>>> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Aug 11, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Doug Turnbull < > >>>>> dturnb...@opensourceconnections.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Vignan, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We need to see more details / code of what your query parser plugin > >> does > >>>>>> exactly with term vectors, we can't really help you without more > >>>>> details. > >>>>>> Is it open source? Can you share a minimal example that recreates > the > >>>>>> problem? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 1:19 PM Vignan Malyala < > dsmsvig...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I made my custom qparser plugin in Solr for scoring. The plugin > only > >>>>> does > >>>>>>> cosine similarity of vectors for each record. I use term vectors > >> here. > >>>>>>> Results are fine! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> BUT, Solr response is very slow with term vectors. It takes around > 55 > >>>>>>> seconds for each request for 1000000 records. > >>>>>>> How do I make it faster to get my results in ms ? > >>>>>>> Please respond soon as its lil urgent. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Note: All my values are stored and indexed. I am not using Solr > >> Cloud. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> *Doug Turnbull **| CTO* | OpenSource Connections > >>>>>> <http://opensourceconnections.com>, LLC | 240.476.9983 > >>>>>> Author: Relevant Search <http://manning.com/turnbull> > >>>>>> This e-mail and all contents, including attachments, is considered > to > >> be > >>>>>> Company Confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise, regardless > >>>>>> of whether attachments are marked as such. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> >
