Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 64EE618610 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 6632 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2016 10:15:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 6562 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2016 10:15:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 6545 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jan 2016 10:15:28 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 10:15:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 757C0C0D15 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:15:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.88 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.88 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-east.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vybMhL6AZycu for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:15:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf0-f50.google.com (mail-lf0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by mx1-us-east.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-east.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 151F742A65 for ; Wed, 6 Jan 2016 10:15:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f50.google.com with SMTP id p203so312406623lfa.0 for ; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 02:15:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=kKo+vmmjcRv7ioilhYMZdep4MsuGD8f33gQPtYB8YUI=; b=zrD4z01epD8gznxc2LmOEZ8fzOFBrFtxkBts1DXIMCvPVmq1IL3WY3JmKVKrln7xxg Mo67LGsDEY2icTRpa3TKCb2VDfHBlZXHtGXQXxJt7yPRJxR0x0O0G3n7TjTfUyfWrNpg BjbCgUqWi7gtUj4fNChV1KCvd32UbyI0VVJYUniB27N3Kswi5X+pOaDK6kVmg/IMNW5d AfZrJK1ohRGtDc+9utg9FgnnA4DX74imf/vIaE0ghDRuX6MfxT2ocVtKrVavVtAg3GGE FUUC3ZsrpZjFeH+xja23zCEUlILUi+5/t3QbG59R9Ou82KuKYfuGpvkzwnERFrYlhq7H NZUw== X-Received: by 10.25.158.136 with SMTP id h130mr23932400lfe.136.1452075320899; Wed, 06 Jan 2016 02:15:20 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Novin Novin Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 10:15:11 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: solr 5.2.0 need to build high query response To: solr-user Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113db368b0806d0528a7a150 --001a113db368b0806d0528a7a150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Erick, this listener doing quite a good job. But not what I needed. Do the solr has any other things that I can look into to make it faster. FYI speed goes to 1 sec to 1.2 sec. I actually needed around 500 ms. On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 18:24 Erick Erickson wrote: > Yep. Do note what's happening here. You're executing a query > that potentially takes 10 seconds to execute (based on your > earlier post). But you may be opening a new searcher every > 2 seconds. You may start to see "too many on deck searchers" > in your log. If you do do _not_ try to "fix" this by upping the > maxWarmingSearchers in solrconfig.xml, that's really an > anti-pattern. > > Really, I'd consider relaxing this 2 second limit. I've often found > it easier to tell users "it may take up to 30 seconds for newly-added > docs to appear in search results" than try to satisfy overly-tight > requirements. > > As a former co-worker often said, "Users are much more comfortable > with predictable delays than unpredictable ones". It's surprising how > often it's the case. > > Best, > Erick > > P.S. What's the difference between newSearcher and firstSearcher? > newSearcher is fired every time a commit (soft or hard with > openSearcher=3Dtrue) > where firstSearcher is fired up only when Solr starts. This is to > accommodate > the fact that the autowarm counts on things like filterCacher aren't > available when Solr starts. In practice, though, many (most?) people > put the same query in both. > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Novin Novin wrote: > > If I'm correct, you are talking about this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *or may be here too.* > > > > static firstSearcher warming in > > solrconfig.xml > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > Novin > > > > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 16:22 Erick Erickson > wrote: > > > >> It sounds like you're not doing proper autowarming, > >> which you'd need to do either with hard or > >> soft commits that open new searchers. > >> > >> see: > >> https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCaching#Cache_Warming_and_Autowarming > >> > >> In particular, you should have a newSearcher event > >> that facets on the fields you expect to need. > >> > >> Best, > >> Erick > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Novin Novin > wrote: > >> > Thanks David. It is quite good to use for NRT. > >> > > >> > Apologies, I didn't mention that facet search is really slow. > >> > > >> > I found the below reason which could be the reason because I am usin= g > >> facet > >> > spatial search which is getting slow. > >> > > >> > To know more about solr hard and soft commits, have a look at this > blog : > >> > > >> > https://lucidworks.com/blog/2013/08/23/understanding-transaction-logs-sof= tcommit-and-commit-in-sorlcloud/ > >> > > >> > In this article, "soft commits are that they will make documents > visible, > >> > but at some cost. In particular the =E2=80=9Ctop level=E2=80=9D cach= es, which include > >> what > >> > you configure in solrconfig.xml (filterCache, queryResultCache, etc) > will > >> > be invalidated! Autowarming will be performed on your top level cach= es > >> > (e.g. filterCache, queryResultCache), and any newSearcher queries > will be > >> > executed. Also, the FieldValueCache is invalidated, so facet queries > will > >> > have to wait until the cache is refreshed." > >> > > >> > Do you have any idea what could possible be do about this? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 12:31 davidphilip cherian < > >> > davidphilipcherian@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> You should use solr softcommit for this use case. So, by setting > >> softcommit > >> >> to 5 seconds and autoCommit to minute with openSearcher=3Dfalse sho= uld > do > >> the > >> >> work. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 60000 > >> >> false > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2000 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Reference link- > >> >> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Near+Real+Time+Searching > >> >> > >> >> To know more about solr hard and soft commits, have a look at this > blog > >> : > >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://lucidworks.com/blog/2013/08/23/understanding-transaction-logs-sof= tcommit-and-commit-in-sorlcloud/ > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Novin Novin > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Hi guys, > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm having trouble to figure what would be idle solr config for > where: > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm doing hard commit in every minute for very few number of > users > >> >> > because I have to show those docs in search results quickly when > user > >> >> save > >> >> > the changes. > >> >> > > >> >> > It is causing the response in around 2 secs to show even I am > getting > >> >> only > >> >> > 10 records. > >> >> > > >> >> > Could you able to give some idea where to look at. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Thanks in advance, > >> >> > Novin > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > --001a113db368b0806d0528a7a150--