lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marius van Zwijndregt <pionw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Solr 3.1 performance compared to 1.4.1
Date Tue, 12 Apr 2011 07:19:43 GMT
Hi Lance,

Well not actually copied over the whole configuration files, instead i just
added in the missing configuration (into a fresh copy of the example
directory).

By the directory implementation do you mean the readers used by
SolrIndexSearcher ?

These are:
reader : SolrIndexReader{this=1cb04a0,r=ReadOnlyDirectoryReader@1cb04a0
,refCnt=1,segments=1}
readerDir : org.apache.lucene.store.NIOFSDirectory@/opt/solr3/example/solr/data/index
lockFactory=org.apache.lucene.store.NativeFSLockFactory@1efc208

But it seems the performance is actually still becoming better, at the
moment the average has dropped even lower to 28ms (in comparison to 43ms in
1.4.1)

Cheers!

Marius

2011/4/12 Lance Norskog <goksron@gmail.com>

> Marius: "I have copied the configuration from 1.4.1 to the 3.1."
>
> Does the Directory implementation show up in the JMX beans? In
> admin/statistics.jsp ? Or the Solr startup logs? (Sorry, don't have a
> Solr available.)
>
> Yonik:
> > What platform are you on?  I believe the Lucene Directory
> > implementation now tries to be smarter (compared to lucene 2.9) about
> > picking the best default (but it may not be working out for you for
> > some reason)
>
> Lance
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Yonik Seeley
> <yonik@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Marius van Zwijndregt
> > <pionware@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hello !
> >>
> >> I'm new to the list, have been using SOLR for roughly 6 months and love
> it.
> >>
> >> Currently i'm setting up a 3.1 installation, next to a 1.4.1
> installation
> >> (Ubuntu server, same JVM params). I have copied the configuration from
> 1.4.1
> >> to the 3.1.
> >> Both version are running fine, but one thing ive noticed, is that the
> QTime
> >> on 3.1, is much slower for initial searches than on the (currently
> >> production) 1.4.1 installation.
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> Searching with 3.1; http://mysite:9983/solr/select?q=grasmaaier: QTime
> >> returns 371
> >> Searching with 1.4.1: http://mysite:8983/solr/select?q=grasmaaier:
> QTime
> >> returns 59
> >>
> >> Using debugQuery=true, i can see that the main time is spend in the
> query
> >> component itself (org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent).
> >>
> >> Can someone explain this, and how can i analyze this further ? Does it
> take
> >> time to build up a decent query, so could i switch to 3.1 without having
> to
> >> worry ?
> >
> > Thanks for the report... there's no reason that anything should really
> > be much slower, so it would be great to get to the bottom of this!
> >
> > Is this using the same index as the 1.4.1 server, or did you rebuild it?
> >
> > Are there any other query parameters (that are perhaps added by
> > default, like faceting or anything else that could take up time) or is
> > this truly just a term query?
> >
> > What platform are you on?  I believe the Lucene Directory
> > implementation now tries to be smarter (compared to lucene 2.9) about
> > picking the best default (but it may not be working out for you for
> > some reason).
> >
> > -Yonik
> > http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May
> > 25-26, San Francisco
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lance Norskog
> goksron@gmail.com
>

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