lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nitin Solanki <nitinml...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Whole RAM consumed while Indexing.
Date Thu, 19 Mar 2015 09:53:24 GMT
Hi Alxeandre,
                        Number of segment counts are different but document
counts are same.
With (soft commit - 300 and hardcommit - 6000) = No. of segment - 43
AND
With (soft commit - 60000 and hardcommit - 60000) = No. of segment - 31

I dont' have any idea related to segment counts. What is it? How to solve
it? Any idea.
Or it is fine without worrying about segments.
Just want to ask - If segment counts are more than searching will be slow?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch <arafalov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Probably merged somewhat differently with some terms indexes repeating
> between segments. Check the number of segments in data directory.And
> do search for *:* and make sure both do have the same document counts.
>
> Also, In all these discussions, you still haven't answered about how
> fast after indexing you want to _search_? Because, if you are not
> actually searching while committing, you could even index on a
> completely separate server (e.g. a faster one) and swap (or alias)
> index in afterwards. Unless, of course, I missed it, it's a lot of
> emails in a very short window of time.
>
> Regards,
>    Alex.
>
> ----
> Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs and even a newsletter:
> http://www.solr-start.com/
>
>
> On 18 March 2015 at 12:09, Nitin Solanki <nitinmlvya@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When I kept my configuration to 300 for soft commit and 3000 for hard
> > commit and indexed some amount of data, I got the data size of the whole
> > index to be 6GB after completing the indexing.
> >
> > When I changed the configuration to 60000 for soft commit and 60000 for
> > hard commit and indexed same data then I got the data size of the whole
> > index to be 5GB after completing the indexing.
> >
> > But the number of documents in the both scenario were same. I am
> wondering
> > how that can be possible?
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Nitin Solanki <nitinmlvya@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Erick,
> >>              I am just saying. I want to be sure on commits difference..
> >> What if I do frequent commits or not? And why I am saying that I need to
> >> commit things so very quickly because I have to index 28GB of data which
> >> takes 7-8 hours(frequent commits).
> >> As you said, do commits after 60000 seconds then it will be more
> expensive.
> >> If I don't encounter with **"overlapping searchers" warning messages**
> >> then I feel it seems to be okay. Is it?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Erick Erickson <
> erickerickson@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Don't do it. Really, why do you want to do this? This seems like
> >>> an "XY" problem, you haven't explained why you need to commit
> >>> things so very quickly.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect you haven't tried _searching_ while committing at such
> >>> a rate, and you might as well turn all your top-level caches off
> >>> in solrconfig.xml since they won't be useful at all.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>> Erick
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Nitin Solanki <nitinmlvya@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >        If I do very very fast indexing(softcommit = 300 and
> hardcommit =
> >>> > 3000) v/s slow indexing (softcommit = 60000 and hardcommit = 60000)
> as
> >>> you
> >>> > both said. Will fast indexing fail to index some data?
> >>> > Any suggestion on this ?
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Ramkumar R. Aiyengar <
> >>> > andyetitmoves@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Yes, and doing so is painful and takes lots of people and hardware
> >>> >> resources to get there for large amounts of data and queries :)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> As Erick says, work backwards from 60s and first establish how
high
> the
> >>> >> commit interval can be to satisfy your use case..
> >>> >> On 16 Mar 2015 16:04, "Erick Erickson" <erickerickson@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > First start by lengthening your soft and hard commit intervals
> >>> >> > substantially. Start with 60000 and work backwards I'd say.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Ramkumar has tuned the heck out of his installation to get
the
> commit
> >>> >> > intervals to be that short ;).
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > I'm betting that you'll see your RAM usage go way down, but
that'
> s a
> >>> >> > guess until you test.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Best,
> >>> >> > Erick
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Nitin Solanki <
> >>> nitinmlvya@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> > > Hi Erick,
> >>> >> > >             You are saying correct. Something, **"overlapping
> >>> >> searchers"
> >>> >> > > warning messages** are coming in logs.
> >>> >> > > **numDocs numbers** are changing when documents are adding
at
> the
> >>> time
> >>> >> of
> >>> >> > > indexing.
> >>> >> > > Any help?
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Erick Erickson <
> >>> >> > erickerickson@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >> First, the soft commit interval is very short. Very,
very,
> very,
> >>> very
> >>> >> > >> short. 300ms is
> >>> >> > >> just short of insane unless it's a typo ;).
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> Here's a long background:
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>>
> https://lucidworks.com/blog/understanding-transaction-logs-softcommit-and-commit-in-sorlcloud/
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> But the short form is that you're opening searchers
every 300
> ms.
> >>> The
> >>> >> > >> hard commit is better,
> >>> >> > >> but every 3 seconds is still far too short IMO. I'd
start with
> >>> soft
> >>> >> > >> commits of 60000 and hard
> >>> >> > >> commits of 60000 (60 seconds), meaning that you're
going to
> have
> >>> to
> >>> >> > >> wait 1 minute for
> >>> >> > >> docs to show up unless you explicitly commit.
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> You're throwing away all the caches configured in
> solrconfig.xml
> >>> more
> >>> >> > >> than 3 times a second,
> >>> >> > >> executing autowarming, etc, etc, etc....
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> Changing these to longer intervals might cure the
problem, but
> if
> >>> not
> >>> >> > >> then, as Hoss would
> >>> >> > >> say, "details matter". I suspect you're also seeing
> "overlapping
> >>> >> > >> searchers" warning messages
> >>> >> > >> in your log, and it;s _possible_ that what's happening
is that
> >>> you're
> >>> >> > >> just exceeding the
> >>> >> > >> max warming searchers and never opening a new searcher
with the
> >>> >> > >> newly-indexed documents.
> >>> >> > >> But that's a total shot in the dark.
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> How are you looking for docs (and not finding them)?
Does the
> >>> numDocs
> >>> >> > >> number in
> >>> >> > >> the solr admin screen change?
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> Best,
> >>> >> > >> Erick
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> > >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Nitin Solanki <
> >>> nitinmlvya@gmail.com
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > >> wrote:
> >>> >> > >> > Hi Alexandre,
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> > *Hard Commit* is :
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> >      <autoCommit>
> >>> >> > >> >        <maxTime>${solr.autoCommit.maxTime:3000}</maxTime>
> >>> >> > >> >        <openSearcher>false</openSearcher>
> >>> >> > >> >      </autoCommit>
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> > *Soft Commit* is :
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> > <autoSoftCommit>
> >>> >> > >> >     <maxTime>${solr.autoSoftCommit.maxTime:300}</maxTime>
> >>> >> > >> > </autoSoftCommit>
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> > And I am committing 20000 documents each time.
> >>> >> > >> > Is it good config for committing?
> >>> >> > >> > Or I am good something wrong ?
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
<
> >>> >> > >> arafalov@gmail.com>
> >>> >> > >> > wrote:
> >>> >> > >> >
> >>> >> > >> >> What's your commit strategy? Explicit commits?
Soft
> >>> commits/hard
> >>> >> > >> >> commits (in solrconfig.xml)?
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >> Regards,
> >>> >> > >> >>    Alex.
> >>> >> > >> >> ----
> >>> >> > >> >> Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs
and even a
> >>> newsletter:
> >>> >> > >> >> http://www.solr-start.com/
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >> >> On 12 March 2015 at 23:19, Nitin Solanki
<
> nitinmlvya@gmail.com
> >>> >
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> > >> >> > Hello,
> >>> >> > >> >> >           I have written a python script
to do 20000
> >>> documents
> >>> >> > >> indexing
> >>> >> > >> >> > each time on Solr. I have 28 GB RAM
with 8 CPU.
> >>> >> > >> >> > When I started indexing, at that time
15 GB RAM was freed.
> >>> While
> >>> >> > >> >> indexing,
> >>> >> > >> >> > all RAM is consumed but **not** a single
document is
> >>> indexed. Why
> >>> >> > so?
> >>> >> > >> >> > And it through *HTTPError: HTTP Error
503: Service
> >>> Unavailable*
> >>> >> in
> >>> >> > >> python
> >>> >> > >> >> > script.
> >>> >> > >> >> > I think it is due to heavy load on
Zookeeper by which all
> >>> nodes
> >>> >> > went
> >>> >> > >> >> down.
> >>> >> > >> >> > I am not sure about that. Any help
please..
> >>> >> > >> >> > Or anything else is happening..
> >>> >> > >> >> > And how to overcome this issue.
> >>> >> > >> >> > Please assist me towards right path.
> >>> >> > >> >> > Thanks..
> >>> >> > >> >> >
> >>> >> > >> >> > Warm Regards,
> >>> >> > >> >> > Nitin Solanki
> >>> >> > >> >>
> >>> >> > >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>

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