Hi,

We've been using solr for several years now with great success.  Recently, we 
modified a boost query to reference a dynamic sint field defined as follows:

    <dynamicField name="*_i"  type="sint" indexed="true" stored="false" 
omitNorms="true"/>

We index a handful of these fields per document.  Their field names are of the 
form:

    _<id>_specialty_percent_i

Examples:

    _56_specialty_percent_i
    _71_specialty_percent_i

There are roughly 240 different ids.  No document has more than 20 of these 
fields, most of 1-4.  Many have none.  We have about ~3 million documents.

We added the following clause to our boost query:

    _<id>_specialty_percent_i^10.0

We insert the appropriate id into the boost clause at query time.

Our average response time from solr prior to this change was around 12-20 ms.  
Immediately after, it went up a bit to 16-32ms.  Unfortunate, but acceptable.  
Then in the following minutes, the response time begins to fluctuate heavily, 
spiking to 100ms and then back down to 20, then to 150ms and back down.  After 
30-60 mins, the response time spikes to 15K ms which effectively kills the 
instance and it never recovers until our monitoring restarts solr.

Initially we were giving the JVM 6gigs of memory.  As a test, we bumped it up 
to 10.  That delayed the effect, but it still happened.  It took about 2-3 
hours to tank.  Here's the commandline:

  /usr/bin/java \
  -Djetty.home=/srv/solr \
  -Dsolr.solr.home=/srv/solr/solr \
  -Xms6144m -Xmx6144m \
  -jar /srv/solr/start.jar \

I've isolated this issue to the boost query, even if it's the only clause in 
the boost query, it still happens.  Without it, everything runs great.  I 
cannot reproduce the problem using any other field.

We boost on other *_i fields with no problems.

We're running solr 1.4.1.  All queries are going against slaves.  Here's our 
cache config:

    <filterCache class="solr.LRUCache" size="1000" initialSize="1000" 
autowarmCount="1000"/>

Any advice or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

thanks!

ben

Reply via email to