[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14401?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17470953#comment-17470953
 ] 

David Smiley commented on SOLR-14401:
-------------------------------------

Since the metrics logic for this is in RequestHandlerBase, I suppose we could 
add a protected method supportsDistributedRequests() that defaults to false and 
is only implemented by a few handlers?  WDYT [~ab]. I think we need to get this 
into only a major release due to back-compat concerns?

So except for a few handlers, most handlers will only have a ".distrib." 
metric.  That feels weird though; doesn't it?  I'd prefer that there would be 
no ".distrib."  or anything in the name; instead only add a ".local." or 
perhaps ".shard.".  WDYT?

> "distrib" request handler metrics should only be tracked on pertinent handlers
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-14401
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-14401
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: metrics
>            Reporter: David Smiley
>            Priority: Major
>
> SOLR-13979 in 8.4 added separate request handler metrics for distributed 
> requests.  However this was done for _all_ request handlers, even though it's 
> mainly SearchHandler (and maybe one or two others?) where a distributed 
> request is even possible.  I refer to this as "metrics pollution" and it's a 
> bad thing.  It's more weight per handler (latency load & memory), more weight 
> for Solr metrics responses, and it's also _suggestive_ that all registered 
> handlers can have distributed requests when this is quite false, thus 
> confusing people.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org

Reply via email to