lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Solr 3.1 performance compared to 1.4.1
Date Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:03:38 GMT
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
View raw message