Hi again,

  Thank you for all the pointers, they were very helpful.  After digging in
enough, I figured that it is a certain text field that matches a large set
of docs for a given query. And it is the one adding to the latency.
Appreciate any suggestions to optimize it.

An example query that matches a large set of documents.

q=cats&defType=edismax&qf=keywords description title&fl=id&rows=10 | Qtime
= 531

The query fields are the same field type(text_en).  I tried the following
variants and have included their respective QTime notes.
1. rows=0 | Qtime = 518
2. qf=keywords | Qtime = 323 - This is the field that matches 85% of total
docs and is adding to the overall latency of  the queries
3. qf=description | Qtime= 144 - This field matches 25% of total docs
4. qf=title | Qtime = 17 - This field matches 5% of total docs

It is clear that whenever a query matches a large number of docs from any
query fields, which is often the keywords field in this case, it has high
latency.  What causes this issue?  What are my options to optimize such
queries latency?

Thank you,
Rajani

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 12:30 PM Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 5:01 AM rajani m <rajinima...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, it took too long to get back to this one.
> >
> >  The search query "http://host:8983/solr/v9/select?&q=*&rows=10";
> > consistently
> > took ~500 ms.  With "distrib=false" all the 96 shards have QTime 0-25 ms.
> > Does this mean aggregation of results from all the shards is taking ~475
> > ms? I also tried shards.rows=5 and it still returned in ~475 ms query
> time.
> >
>
> Giving that. Don't you have any limits for ShardHandlerFactory set in
> solr.xml?
> debugQuery=true or debug=track can produce verbose shard request tracing
> info. Perhaps it might get some clue.
> Full fledged approach is
>
> https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/latest/deployment-guide/distributed-tracing.html
> for sure.
> Might it be a problem of slow dns names resolution?
> Does it still slow on rows=0?
> --
> Sincerely yours
> Mikhail Khludnev
>

Reply via email to