lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Exner <>
Subject Re: Benchmarking Solr 3.3 vs. 4.0
Date Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:40:08 GMT
Shawn Heisey wrote:
> For best results, you'll want to ensure that Solr4 is working completely
> from scratch, that it has never seen a 3.3 index, so that it will use
> its own native format.
That's why I did in the second run. Thanks for clarifying that this is 
in fact better. :)

> It may be a good idea to look into the example
> Solr4 config/schema and see whether there are improvements you can
> make.  One note: the updateLog feature in the update handler config will
> generally cause performance to be lower.  The features that require
> updateLog would make this less of an apples to apples comparison, so I
> wouldn't enable it unless I knew I needed it.
I'll have a look at the updateLog feature. But I'm pretty sure its disabled.

> Unless the lines are labelled wrong in the legend, the graph does show
> higher CPU usage during the push, but lower CPU usage during the
> optimize and most of the rest of the time.
Slightly, but I was expecting higher latency also. Also raw data shows 
the box is unable to deliver CPU stats to the PerfMon Plugin because of 
high load. Perhaps I was expecting higher changes, but if you say what I 
see is ok, I'm fine.
Can you comment on high CPU load even at low QPS rates?
Is there some parameter to force lower load while testing at the cost of 
higher latencies for better comparison?

> The graph shows that Solr4 has lower latency than 3.3 during both the
> push and the optimize, as well as most of the rest of the time.  The
> latency numbers however are a lot higher than I would expect, seeming to
> average out at around 100 seconds (100000 ms).  That is terrible
> performance from both versions.  On my own Solr installation, which is
> distributed and has 78 million documents, I have a median latency of 8
> milliseconds and a 95th percentile latency of 248 milliseconds.
OK, I should relabel the y-axis because data is in fact 1000 times to 
high. So latency is more at 10ms which is quite good for high QPS rates.

> Is this a 64-bit platform with a 64-bit Java?  How much memory have you
> allocated for the java heap?  How big is the index?

The VM I am using is an openSUSE 10.3 (i586), so no 64-bit Java at all 
(but production is using it).
Tomcat Java parameters are:
"-Xms1024m -Xmx1024m -XX:PermSize=256m -XX:MaxPermSize=256m 
-XX:+UseParallelGC -XX:ParallelGCThreads=4 -XX:GCTimeRatio=10"

Number of docs is 266249 for both indices. Which is quite small, but I 
may be able to use a much larger index and a much better machine in the 
near future.

Daniel Exner
Daniel Exner
Softwaredevelopment & Applicationsupport

View raw message