Erick, What you said is correct for us the searches are based on some Active Directory permissions which are populated in Filter query parameter. So we don't have any warming query concept as we cannot fire for every user ahead of time.
What we do here is that when user logs in we do an invalid query(which return no results instead of '*') with the correct filter query (which is his permissions based on the login). This way the cache gets warmed up with valid docs. It works then. Also, can you please let me know why commit is taking 45 mins to 1 hours on a good resourced hardware with multiple processors and 16gb RAM 64 bit VM, etc. We tried passing waitSearcher as false and found that inside the code it hard coded to be true. Is there any specific reason. Can we change that value to honor what is being passed. Thanks, Tirthankar -----Original Message----- From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:38 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: NRT and commit behavior Hmm, I'm guessing a bit here, but using an invalid query doesn't sound very safe, but I suppose it *might* be OK. What does "invalid" mean? Syntax error? not safe. search that returns 0 results? I don't know, but I'd guess that filling your caches, which is the point of warming queries, might be short circuited if the query returns 0 results but I don't know for sure. But the fact that "invalid queries return quicker" does not inspire confidence since the *point* of warming queries is to spend the time up front so your users don't have to wait. So here's a test. Comment out your warming queries. Restart your server and fire the warming query from the browser with&debugQuery=on and look at the QTime parameter. Now fire the same form of the query (as in the same sort, facet, grouping, etc, but presumably a valid term). See the QTime. Now fire the same form of the query with a *different* value in the query. That is, it should search on different terms but with the same sort, facet, etc. to avoid getting your data straight from the queryResultCache. My guess is that the last query will return much more quickly than the second query. Which would indicate that the first form isn't doing you any good. But a test is worth a thousand opinions. Best Erick On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Tirthankar Chatterjee <tchatter...@commvault.com> wrote: > Also noticed that "waitSearcher" parameter value is not honored inside > commit. It is always defaulted to true which makes it slow during indexing. > > What we are trying to do is use an invalid query (which wont return any > results) as a warming query. This way the commit returns faster. Are we doing > something wrong here? > > Thanks, > Tirthankar > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Rochkind [mailto:rochk...@jhu.edu] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:38 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org; yo...@lucidimagination.com > Subject: Re: NRT and commit behavior > > In practice, in my experience at least, a very 'expensive' commit can > still slow down searches significantly, I think just due to CPU (or > i/o?) starvation. Not sure anything can be done about that. That's my > experience in Solr 1.4.1, but since searches have always been async with > commits, it probably is the same situation even in more recent versions, I'd > guess. > > On 7/18/2011 11:07 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Nicholas Chase<nch...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >>> Very glad to hear that NRT is finally here! But my question is this: >>> will things still come to a standstill during a commit? >> New updates can now proceed in parallel with a commit, and searches >> have always been completely asynchronous w.r.t. commits. >> >> -Yonik >> http://www.lucidimagination.com >> > ******************Legal Disclaimer*************************** > "This communication may contain confidential and privileged material > for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, > use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you have > received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply email > and delete the message. Thank you." > ********************************************************* >
