lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Erick Erickson" <erickerick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 7GB index taking forever to return hits
Date Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:19:51 GMT
Three things come to mind:

1> You can think about caching your filters. This only makes sense if you
have a fairly small number of wildcards that you *expect*. Probably not
really viable, but I thought I'd mention it.

2> You say that the search is "part of the requirements". It might be worth
asking the people who wrote the requirements why. I've sometimes found that
requirements aren't cast in stone, and things get in there that would be
"nice" to have, but when informed of the trade-offs, the requirements may
not be inflexible. Speaking of tradeoffs, I'm not sure a person can
reasonably complain about 10s wildcard searches on a 7G index of the type
you outlined.<G>.

3> Not that I expect it to matter much for search speed, but is the 7G
necessary? In other words, do you store things that you don't need to store
in your index? This could be important if you decide to try some of the
alternative indexing schemes.

Best
Erick

On 8/15/06, Van Nguyen <vnguyen@ur.com> wrote:
>
> I'm now using a filter on the wildcard portion of the query.  Takes 10s
> to return results.  I took out the wildcard query and just search on
> terms and that takes 187ms to return the same results (well... Not
> same... But a lot faster to return results).  Unfortunately, the
> wildcard query is part of the requirement.  I'll play around with the
> filter to see if I can reduce the search time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Van
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerickson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 6:20 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 7GB index taking forever to return hits
>
> I actually suspect that your process isn't hung, it's just taking
> forever because it's swapping a lot. Like a really, really, really lot.
> Like more than you ever want to deal with <G>.
>
> I think you're pretty much forced, as Lin said, to use a filter. I was
> pleasantly surprised at how quickly filters can be built, and if you
> have a small set of wildcards you really expect, you can use a
> CachingWrapperFilter to keep them around. NOTE: we're only recommending
> the filters for the wildcard portions of the query.
>
> For a generous explanation of wildcards in general from "the guys",
> search the archive for a thread "I just don't get wildcards at all".
> There's quite an explanation of wildcards, as well as some alternative
> indexing schemes to make wildcard queries without wildcards. Which is
> faster but bloats the index.
>
> If you're unfamiliar with filters, you really need to become familiar
> with them. Basically, they're a bitset with the bit corresponding to
> each document turned on for terms that could match.
>
> You'll probably want to use a WildcardTermEnum, or perhaps a
> RegexTermEnum, and for each term, enumerate all the docs containing that
> term (see
> TermDocs) and set your bit in the filter. When the filter is created,
> use it to construct a ConstantScoreQuery that you add to your
> BooleanQuery. It sounds more complicated than it is <G>.
>
> Just to clarify Lin's comment. The filter won't be slower than what you
> are doing now. But it will be slower than a straight-up query. Each
> filter will be under a megabyte (one bit for each of 5.5M docs), so you
> could consider caching a bunch of them if you expect a small number of
> terms to be repeated. Or let CachingWrapperFilter do it for you (I
> think).
>
> Note that ConstantScoreQuery loses relevance scoring (but you'll still
> get relevance for the non-wildcard terms in your BooleanQuery). I don't
> consider this a flaw since it's tricky defining how much *use* relevance
> really is for wildcards.
>
> Finally, your test queries (and I commend you for making limit-testing
> tests before putting it in production) are about as bad as they get.
> From the javadoc for WildcardQuery.
>
> " In order to prevent extremely slow WildcardQueries, a Wildcard term
> should not start with one of the wildcards * or ?"
>
> Best
> Erick
>
>
>
> On 8/14/06, yueyu lin <popeyelin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > To avoid "TooManyClauses", you can try Filter instead of Query. But
> > that will be slower.
> > Form what I see is that there are so many keys that match your query,
> > it will be tough for Lucene.
> >
> > On 8/14/06, Van Nguyen <vnguyen@ur.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It was how I was implementing the search.
> > >
> > > I am using a boolean query.  Prior to the 7GB index, I was searching
>
> > > over a 150MB index that consist of a very small part of the bigger
> > > index.  I was able to set my BooleanQuery to
> > > BooleanQuery.setMaxClauseCount(Integer.MAX_VALUE) and that worked
> fine.
> > > But I think that's the cause of my problem with this bigger index.
> > > Commenting that out, I get an TooManyClause Exception.  A typical
> > > query would look something like this:
> > >
> > > +CONTENTS:*white* +CONTENTS:*hard* +CONTENTS:*hat* +COMPANY_CODE:u1
> > > +LANGUAGE:enu -SKU_DESC_ID:0 +IS_DC:d +LOCATION:b72
> > >
> > > BooleanQuery q = new BooleanQuery();
> > >
> > > WildcardQuery wc1 = new WildcardQuery("CONTENTS", "*white*");
> > > WildcardQuery wc2 = new WildcardQuery("CONTENTS", "*hard*");
> > > WildcardQuery wc3 = new WildcardQuery("CONTENTS", "*hat*");
> > > q.add(wc1, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST); q.add(wc2,
> > > BooleanClause.Occur.MUST); q.add(wc3, BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
> > >
> > > TermQuery t1 = new TermQuery("COMPANY_CODE", "u1"); q.add(t1,
> > > BooleanClause.Occur.MUST);
> > >
> > > TermQuery t2 = new TermQuery("LANGUAGE", "enu"); q.add(t2,
> > > BooleanClause.Occur.MUST); .
> > > .
> > > .
> > >
> > > I take it this is not the most optimal way about this.
> > >
> > > So that leads me to my next question... What is the most optimal way
>
> > > about this?
> > >
> > > Van
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: yueyu lin [mailto:popeyelin@gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 11:30 AM
> > > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: 7GB index taking forever to return hits
> > >
> > > 2GB limitation only exists when you want to put them to memory in
> > > 32bits box.
> > > Our index size is larger than 13 giga bytes, and it works fine.
> > > I think it must be something error in your design. You can use Luke
> > > to see what happened in your index.
> > >
> > > On 8/14/06, Van Nguyen <vnguyen@ur.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have a 7GB index (about 45 fields per document X roughly 5.5
> > > > million
> > > > docs) running on a Windows 2003 32bit machine (dual proc, 2GB
> memory).
> > >
> > > > The index is optimized.  Performing a search on this index will
> > > > just "hang" when performing the search (wild card query with a
> > > > sort).  At first the CPU usage is 100%, then drops down to 50%
> > > > after a minute or so, and then no CPU utilization... but the
> > > > thread is still trying to perform the search.  I've tried this in
> > > > my J2EE app and in a main program.  Is this due to the 2GB
> > > > limitation of the 32bit OS (I didn't realize the index would be
> > > > this big... just let it run over the
> > > weekend).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If this is due to the 2GB limitation of the 32bit OS and since I
> > > > have this 7GB index built already (and optimized), is there a way
> > > > to split this into 2GB indices w/o having to re-index?  Or is this
>
> > > > due to
> > > another factor?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Van
> > > >
> > > > United Rentals
> > > > Consider it done.(tm)
> > > > 800-UR-RENTS
> > > > unitedrentals.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Yueyu Lin
> > >
> > > United Rentals
> > > Consider it done.(tm)
> > > 800-UR-RENTS
> > > unitedrentals.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Yueyu Lin
> >
> >
>
> United Rentals
> Consider it done.™
> 800-UR-RENTS
> unitedrentals.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message