Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC2FB200BE1 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 18:47:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id DAC27160B21; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CACC160B14 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 18:47:30 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 58865 invoked by uid 500); 19 Dec 2016 17:47:29 -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 58849 invoked by uid 99); 19 Dec 2016 17:47:29 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:47:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id AD748C8715 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:47:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fucit-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pE4q4y4wBThO for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pf0-f172.google.com (mail-pf0-f172.google.com [209.85.192.172]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 158ED5F3BC for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:47:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf0-f172.google.com with SMTP id i88so24815207pfk.2 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:47:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fucit-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:user-agent :mime-version; bh=o4ZPeMbmtGenUTtnL+Q1XWIjksFvutx5dvUPZslYjiU=; b=QDhYR+vitP+JuOWDCRV/4AVHMRg5rM2+aBv4jvqh7uDq/utZQ7j4HbkY68iwx+9K4r oEqZYlann0xf1str3jR3119Ku6+4pveAHQ9wdzsdFdHzzHlVXnNeHbvPLL7MLBYJskuV eLnt92+ojTVFmPorIfplv+axe7ym9C3laaQfCtHTb1BWjr5+g74aKFGAaOsK9MyuChBn O//dTWGv4pcv1E525SKZQrHk9hzAkVREQfjO2Mt7TwHZ/Acn8beA9dqAxwpgQkgEVtWs DQqCkohhvqZu57js/4c0KBwERkkomHGw6RPS63OmLnYWHITgMk3CtkMJ95Zc6Wx/4uUP mQPg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:message-id :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=o4ZPeMbmtGenUTtnL+Q1XWIjksFvutx5dvUPZslYjiU=; b=BHCY4vOvHpvVroM0O2fkdCPsFdGNBjdGRYw/IED/A5QABamwNMwR+eRxHSKg8IUHrn ebjECz7qlHefyHpHaiSE1vR9bcMpH8bYhHFtdmbW2lxZbSP8+eYX16DlL3s2d0mzWUYO KwIcjteUyiNdJ3ECC5FZYh72P4QMrM/3mp2ObITAxKN9R78lJsC+NK3UG2Gemb18KBOM qSH5wwAFPUvYXtewYbXo/r2/x7WrJbdsmVDMyivA3qLPWT3t3+W+HrvNIdXRztRls0KK jLC8z66WufvpRKyprid/Ogpl5nGlTjUNMA6BdgEzH9lZNaZUbHUm7usLHFdygp6nlPyi 0qyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03VjyWfSKuLaIlBV0WQDxVk1+p8y1FYl1846wprmFN8xXFEMLcifTyxLakJ0hhMkA== X-Received: by 10.99.217.21 with SMTP id r21mr30890046pgg.78.1482169637544; Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:47:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from tray (c-73-24-177-166.hsd1.az.comcast.net. [73.24.177.166]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p25sm33022475pfk.20.2016.12.19.09.47.16 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:47:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 10:47:15 -0700 (MST) From: Chris Hostetter To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Confusing debug=timing parameter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII archived-at: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:47:32 -0000 SG: IIRC, when doing a distributed/cloud search, the timing info returned for each stage is the *cummulative* time spent on that stage in all shards -- so if you have 4 shards, the "process" time reported could be 4x as much as the actual process time spent. The QTime reported back (in a distributed query) is the "wall clock' time spent by the single node that coordinated the response, *NOT* including time spent writting the response back to the client. So let's imagine you have a single Solr node, and a client that says the total time for a Solr query took 5 seconds, but the QTime reported by solr is 1 second -- that suggests that 4 seconds was spent in either some sort of general network overhead between the client & solr, or in time spent reading docs from disk if (AND ONLY IF) Solr is running in single node mode, where Solr defers disk reads as long as possible and does those reads only as needed to write the response. In this single node setup, you should *NEVER* see the cumulative debug=timing time exceed the QTime (for any reason i can think of) In a distributed query, with multiple solr nodes, any discrepency between the QTime and the time reported by the client is going to be related to network overhead (or client overhead, parsing hte response) because Solr isn't able to do any "local reads" of docs from disk when writting the response. imagine in this situation you have client reports 5 seconds, QTime reports 1 second, and debug=timing reports 45 seconds. that 45 seconds isn't "real" wall clock time, it's just 45 total seconds of time spent on all the nodes in parallel added up cumulatively. the 5 second vs 1 second discrepency would be from the network communication overhead, or client overhead in parsing hte response before proting "success" does that make sense? : Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 08:43:53 -0800 : From: S G : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : Subject: Confusing debug=timing parameter : : Hi, : : I am using Solr 4.10 and its response time for the clients is not very good. : Even though the Solr's plugin/stats shows less than 200 milliseconds, : clients report several seconds in response time. : : So I tried using debug-timing parameter from the Solr UI and this is what I : got. : Note how the QTime is 2978 while the time in debug-timing is 19320. : : What does this mean? : How can Solr return a result in 3 seconds when time taken between two : points in the same path is 20 seconds ? : : { : "responseHeader": { : "status": 0, : "QTime": 2978, : "params": { : "q": "*:*", : "debug": "timing", : "indent": "true", : "wt": "json", : "_": "1481992653008" : } : }, : "response": { : "numFound": 1565135270, : "start": 0, : "maxScore": 1, : "docs": [ : .... : ] : }, : "debug": { : "timing": { : "time": 19320, : "prepare": { : "time": 4, : "query": { : "time": 3 : }, : "facet": { : "time": 0 : }, : "mlt": { : "time": 0 : }, : "highlight": { : "time": 0 : }, : "stats": { : "time": 0 : }, : "expand": { : "time": 0 : }, : "debug": { : "time": 0 : } : }, : "process": { : "time": 19315, : "query": { : "time": 19309 : }, : "facet": { : "time": 0 : }, : "mlt": { : "time": 1 : }, : "highlight": { : "time": 0 : }, : "stats": { : "time": 0 : }, : "expand": { : "time": 0 : }, : "debug": { : "time": 5 : } : } : } : } : } : -Hoss http://www.lucidworks.com/