lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1997) Explore performance of multi-PQ vs single-PQ sorting API
Date Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:52:08 GMT
There are really not that many hoops you need to jump through to be able to
periodically optimize down to 10 segments or so.  I've used lucene at plenty
of other places before LinkedIn, and rarely (since 2.3's indexing speed blew
through the roof) have I had to worry about setting the merge factor too
high, and even when I do, you simply index into another directory while
you're optimizing the original (which is now kept read-only while keeping an
in-memory delete set).  It's not that hard, and it does wonders for your
performance.

Sure, plenty of lucene installations can't optimize, and while many of those
could do with some much-needed refactoring to allow them the possibility of
doing that (otherwise, you get what happened at my old company before I
worked there - there was never any optimize, high merge factor, and commit
after every document [ouch!], and eventually query latency went through the
roof and the system just fell over), I understand that not everyone is going
to do that.

But even in these installations, I'm still saying that you've narrowed the
field down to a very tiny number if you add up all the requirements for
multiPQ to be painful for them (seriously: when is 40MB going to hurt a
system that's designed to handle 100QPS per box?  Or when does 4MB hurt one
designed to handle 10QPS?)

  -jake

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:

> Not *ever* being able to optimize is a common case, without jumping a lot
> of hoops. There are many systems that need to be on nearly 24/7 - an
> optimize on a large index can take many hours - usually an unknown number.
> Linkedin and it's use cases are not the only consumers of lucene.
>
>
> - Mark
>
> http://www.lucidimagination.com (mobile)
>
> On Nov 3, 2009, at 10:51 AM, "Jake Mannix (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>>   [
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12773114#action_12773114
>>  ]
>>
>> Jake Mannix commented on LUCENE-1997:
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> bq. Since each approach has distinct advantages, why not offer both
>> ("simple" and "expert") comparator extensions APIs?
>>
>> +1 from me on this one, as long as the simpler one is around.  I'll bet
>> we'll find that we regret keeping the "expert" one by 3.2 or so though, but
>> I'll take any compromise which gets the simpler API in there.
>>
>> bq. Don't forget that this is multiplied by however many queries are
>> currently in flight.
>>
>> Sure, so if you're running with 100 queries per second on a single shard
>> (pretty fast!), with 100 segments, and you want to do sorting by value on
>> the top 1000 values (how far down the long tail of extreme cases are we at
>> now?  Do librarians hit their search servers with 100 QPS and have indices
>> poorly built with hundreds of segments and can't take downtime to *ever*
>> optimize?), we're now talking about 40MB.
>>
>> *Forty megabytes*.  On a beefy machine which is supposed to be handling
>> 100QPS across an index big enough to need 100 segments.  How much heap would
>> such a machine already be allocating?  4GB?  6?  More?
>>
>> We're talking about less than 1% of the heap is being used by the multiPQ
>> approach in comparison to singlePQ.
>>
>>  Explore performance of multi-PQ vs single-PQ sorting API
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>               Key: LUCENE-1997
>>>               URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1997
>>>           Project: Lucene - Java
>>>        Issue Type: Improvement
>>>        Components: Search
>>>  Affects Versions: 2.9
>>>          Reporter: Michael McCandless
>>>          Assignee: Michael McCandless
>>>       Attachments: LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch,
>>> LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch,
>>> LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch, LUCENE-1997.patch
>>>
>>>
>>> Spinoff from recent "lucene 2.9 sorting algorithm" thread on java-dev,
>>> where a simpler (non-segment-based) comparator API is proposed that
>>> gathers results into multiple PQs (one per segment) and then merges
>>> them in the end.
>>> I started from John's multi-PQ code and worked it into
>>> contrib/benchmark so that we could run perf tests.  Then I generified
>>> the Python script I use for running search benchmarks (in
>>> contrib/benchmark/sortBench.py).
>>> The script first creates indexes with 1M docs (based on
>>> SortableSingleDocSource, and based on wikipedia, if available).  Then
>>> it runs various combinations:
>>>  * Index with 20 balanced segments vs index with the "normal" log
>>>   segment size
>>>  * Queries with different numbers of hits (only for wikipedia index)
>>>  * Different top N
>>>  * Different sorts (by title, for wikipedia, and by random string,
>>>   random int, and country for the random index)
>>> For each test, 7 search rounds are run and the best QPS is kept.  The
>>> script runs singlePQ then multiPQ, and records the resulting best QPS
>>> for each and produces table (in Jira format) as output.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
>> -
>> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message