lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon McDuff <smcd...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Flushing Thread
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:43:13 GMT

Hi Simon W.,
See comments below.
> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:49:03 +0200> Subject: Re: Flushing Thread
> From: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> 
> hey simon ;)
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Simon McDuff <smcduff@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Simon Willnauer!
> >
> > With your explanation, we`ve decided to control the flushing by spawning another
thread. So the thread is available to still ingest ! :-) (correct me if I'm wrong)We do so
by checking the RAM size provided by Lucene! (Thank you!)By putting the automatic flushing
at 1000 megs and our controlling at 900 megs, we know that the automatic flushing "should"
not happen.
> 
> it should not. Yet, 1G is a large ram buffer. In my tests I got much
> better results with lowish ram buffers like 256MB since that causes
> flush to happen more often and it saturates your IO on the machine.
> The general goal is to keep the RAM buffer at a level where you almost
> constantly flush ie. you maximise the the RAM buffer so that a flush
> should happen once you are done with the previous flush. Does that
> make sense?
[SIMON M.] It make sense for some use cases.In our case we have FUSION IO Cards that write
at 6 Gb/S. We do not have contention for IO.Also, we use larger RAM to compress as much as
possible (we have a lot of compression). (in fact we found that 500 megs was enough)

> 
> > I know you contribute a lot to the concurrency feature! This is great! I was very
excited to try it!
> > We tried the following approaches:Option 1- 6 threads referring to the same IndexWriterOption
2- 6 threads having their own IndexWriter, merge it at the end
> > Unfortunately, we found that option 2 scale better. I'm not sure why option 1 didn`t
scale. Is it possible that synchronization between threads is too costly ? ... I don`t have
an answered but it was definitely slower.
> 
> can you provide the numbers and what you actually did in your experiment.
[SIMON M.] I'm not at work today, I can provide these numbers monday if you are still interested.
> 
> > With option 2, we are able to insert between 800 000 - 900 000 documents / sec.
(we've modified lucene to remove some bottleneck)Threads DO NOT ONLY index, it does other
stuff before adding documents.
> 
> what are your modifications? 800k documents are a lot! I wonder what
> you are indexing, do you have any text you are inverting. I have run
> tests on a very strong machine on 4k /doc average doc size and I
> couldn't even get 10% of this. So in your case lock contention in the
> indexwriter (there are still blocking parts) could be dominating. This
> is certainly not what we optimize for. I'd say 99% of the cases the
> most of the time is spend in DocumentsWriterPerThread inverting the
> document. If that is not the case in your experiment and you are only
> measuring thread overhead then I can totally buy your numbers.
> [SIMON M.] We have 3 fields, (2 Fixed ByteRef and one bigger (textField))800k  is for
the 6 threads all together, so one thread is about 133 333 doc / secs.To achieve that performance
we :- Removed notifications process in lucene that does check for stalled flushing... it was
really slow.- We spot some places were memory wasn`t recycle properly.- Removed Stored writer
... we do not use store field.- One IndexWriter per Thread.
> > Did you look at the disruptor pattern (by LMAX) ? It helped us a lot to achieve
great performance in multithreaded environment!> 
> I know of the pattern though their usecase is totally different to
> ours. The time spend per transaction is super low compared to the
> thread overhead so they try to optimize this for high performance
> computing. ie. for like 5M transactions per second you enter / leave
> locks literally all the freaking time. With IndexWriter you don't have
> such a pattern. Large numbers would be like 50k / sec that it 2 orders
> of a magnitude less so lock overhead becomes minor since contention is
> much lower. If you go and make your documents super super small like
> not invert anything or just store you might see an overhead in the
> threading model I agree. Our bottleneck is not lock contention here
> but IO and that is what we optimized this for. Makes sense?[SIMON M.] Not really, By
adding document without any store everything is in memory until we flush. So the bottleneck
wasn`t IO.
When adding document, this is where we optimized. 
I just mentionned disruptor because I thought a design having an IndexWriter having a ringbuffer
inside and many threads that write or flush would be faster.In fact this is what we did but
externally and by having one indexWriter per thread (6 indexWriters). By doing it internally
I think we could remove a lot of overhead.The advantage is your producer should never block.
:-)But the draw back is you need to do copy these fields to the ring buffer. I do understand
it is not suitable for everybody.
> 
> That said, if you really wanna optimize this you could write your own
> DocumentsWriterPerThreadPool and a custom FlushPolicy (both package
> private in org.apache.lucene.index) in DWPThreadPool you only maintain
> one DWPT and in the FlushPolicy you only track ram consumption of that
> DWPT. Once you see that it has filled up you notify another thread
> that its time for flush and go out and call commit. You can then over
> time find out what is the right RAM buffer to saturate IO, don't
> create too many segments to kill performance due to too many
> background merges and maximise in memory throughput.
[SIMON M.] Thank you for the tips. I will continue to find bottlenecks we have!
> 
> simonw :)
> 
> 
> > Thank you
> > Simon M.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:52:19 +0200
> >> Subject: Re: Flushing Thread
> >> From: simon.willnauer@gmail.com
> >> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >> hey,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Simon McDuff <smcduff@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Thank you for your answer!
> >> >
> >> > I read all your blogs! It is always interesting!
> >>
> >> for details see:
> >>
> >> http://www.searchworkings.org/blog/-/blogs/gimme-all-resources-you-have-i-can-use-them!/
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> http://www.searchworkings.org/blog/-/blogs/lucene-indexing-gains-concurrency/
> >> >
> >> > My understanding is probably incorrect ...
> >> > I observed that if you have only one thread that addDocument, it will not
spawn another thread for flushing, it uses the main thread.
> >>
> >> every indexing thread can hit a flush. if you only have one thread you
> >> will not make progress adding docs while flushing.
> >> IW will not create new threads for flushing.
> >> > In this case, my main thread is locked. Correct ?
> >> >
> >> > The concurrent flushing will ONLY work when I have many threads adding
documents ? (In that case I will need to put a ringbuffer in front)
> >>
> >> that is basically correct. You can frequently call commit / or pull a
> >> reader from the IW in a different thread before you ram buffer fills
> >> up so that flushing happens in a different thread. That could work
> >> pretty well if you don't have many deletes to be applied. (if you have
> >> many deletes then pull a reader without applying deletes.
> >>
> >> simon
> >> >
> >> > Do I understand correctly ? Did I miss something ?
> >> >
> >> > Simon
> >> >
> >> >> From: lucene@mikemccandless.com
> >> >> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:02:42 -0400
> >> >> Subject: Re: Flushing Thread
> >> >> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >> This has already been fixed on Lucene 4.0 (we now have fully
> >> >> concurrent flushing), eg see:
> >> >>
> >> >>   http://blog.mikemccandless.com/2011/05/265-indexing-speedup-with-lucenes.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Mike McCandless
> >> >>
> >> >> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Simon McDuff <smcduff@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I see some behavior at the moment when I'm flushing and would
like to know if I can change that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >  One main thread is inserting, when it flushes, it blocks.
> >> >> >  During that time my main thread is blocking. Instead of blocking,
Could it spawn another thread to do that ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Basically,  would like to have one main thread adding document
to my index, if a flushing needs to occur, spawn another threads but it should never lock
the main  threads. Is it possible ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is the only solution is to have many threads indexing the data
?
> >> >> > In that case Is it true to say ONLY one of them will be busy while
the other is flushing ? (I do understand that if my flushing is taking two much time, they
will both flush... :-))
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thank you!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Simon
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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