This is interesting, can you give us a feel for the size/structure of the index (# of documents, size of index, # of shards)?
On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 7:52 AM Dominic Humphries <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid> wrote: > An update, I found the part of the query that's making everything so slow: > the q param > > When we have > "q":"(carroll_county OR Aldi OR Cashier OR Kohls) AND NOT (internship > OR intern OR graduate)", > the search is very slow, taking 20-something seconds > > When it's just > "q":"(carroll_county OR Aldi OR Cashier OR Kohls)", > the search is blazing fast, coming back in under a second. So it appears > it's something triggered by the NOT that's both taking all the time, and > not getting caught by the timeAllowed limit > > Full query below: > > select?f.contract_type.facet.limit=2&fl=*&f.company_id.facet.mincount=1&qt=edismax&f.contract_time.facet.missing=false&f.location_struct.facet.limit=50&facet.date.end=NOW%2FDAY%2B1DAYS&ps=2&f.description.hl.snippets=2&stats.field=salary_avg_stats&facet.date.gap=%2B1DAY&pf=title&stats=true&_qtags=api_id%3Ab02dbf6d~784741%7CFCGI%3A%3AModel%3A%3AWWW%3A%3AJobsBase%3A%3ASearch%7C2781%7CCHOMkO6R7xGwlQ6bKp_SoQ&qs=5&f.contract_time.facet.limit=2&f.contract_time.facet.mincount=1&f.company_id.facet.missing=false&facet.date=%7B!key%3Dfreshness%7Dcreated&bq=(reply_on_adzuna%3Atrue%5E0.5)&f.contract_type.facet.mincount=1&wt=json&f.location_struct.facet.mincount=1&facet.date.hardend=true&f.category_id.facet.limit=50&timeAllowed=4900&f.contract_type.facet.missing=false&f.category_id.facet.mincount=1&sort=score+desc&q.alt=*%3A*&boost=boost_factor&f.company_id.facet.limit=50&facet.date.start=NOW%2FDAY-7DAYS&facet=false&facet.field=%7B!key%3Dlocation%3Aid%7Dlocation_struct&facet.field=%7B!key%3Dcategory%3Aid%7Dcategory_id&facet.field=contract_type&facet.field=contract_time&facet.field=%7B!key%3Dcompany%3Aid%7Dcompany_id&f.description.hl.fragsize=180&hl=false&rows=20&start=0&q=(carroll_county+OR+Aldi+OR+Cashier+OR+Kohls)+AND+NOT+(internship+OR+intern+OR+graduate)&fq=location_id%3A151946&fq=boosted%3A1&fq=%7B!cost%3D200%7Dsearch_category%3A0&fq=created%3A%5BNOW%2FDAY-14DAYS+TO+*%5D > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 17:00, Dominic Humphries <domi...@adzuna.com> wrote: > > > I spoke too soon, I figured out how to get VisualVM talking to solr. Now > > I'm just not sure what to do with it - what sorts of things am I looking > > for? > > > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 16:40, Dominic Humphries <domi...@adzuna.com> > wrote: > > > >> Unfortunately I don't know Java anywhere near well enough to know my way > >> around a profiler or jstack. I've confirmed JMX is enabled and I can > telnet > >> to the port, but VisualVM fails to connect and gives me no reason as to > >> why. > >> > >> I can post the query and result if that's useful - it doesn't return any > >> records so there's nothing to censor > >> > >> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 15:36, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> If you have access to a test instance where the problem can be > >>> reproduced, > >>> attaching a profiler would be one way. Another cruder method is to use > >>> jstack to dump all the threads. > >>> > >>> Another way to tackle this is to help us reproduce your problem. Can > you > >>> share details about your query? Obviously, please don't post anything > >>> your > >>> company wouldn't want public, but if you can share some details that > >>> would > >>> be a start. > >>> > >>> The ideal thing would be to provide a minimum working example of the > >>> problem you are experiencing. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 9:55 AM Dominic Humphries > >>> <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > I've tried both timeAllowed and cpuAllowed and neither are > restricting > >>> the > >>> > amount of time the queries take to run. I have a test query that's > >>> reliably > >>> > taking 20-30 seconds, if there's any useful debug params or such I > can > >>> run > >>> > to provide the information you want I'm happy to run them - I'm not > >>> sure > >>> > how to usefully interrogate solr for where its time is being spent, > >>> sorry > >>> > > >>> > Thanks > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 at 14:25, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > There are unit tests that seem to suggest that timeAllowed still > >>> works, > >>> > can > >>> > > you provide some more information about your use case? Particularly > >>> > > important is any information about where (what code) your queries > are > >>> > > spending a lot of time in if you have it. > >>> > > > >>> > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 6:18 AM Dominic Humphries > >>> > > <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid> > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > > > Hi folks, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > we're testing Solr 9.7 to upgrade our existing 8.11 stack. We're > >>> > seeing a > >>> > > > problem with long requests: we send `timeAllowed=4900` which > works > >>> fine > >>> > > on > >>> > > > the existing 8.11 and keeps requests to just a few seconds. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > With 9.7, however, the flag is basically ignored - requests can > >>> take > >>> > over > >>> > > > 30 seconds whether the flag is present or not, which is causing > >>> higher > >>> > > CPU > >>> > > > load and slowing response times. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I've tried setting the flag suggested in > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/latest/upgrade-notes/major-changes-in-solr-9.html#use-of-timeallowed > >>> > > > - but even with solr.useExitableDirectoryReader set we still > don't > >>> get > >>> > > the > >>> > > > desired behaviour. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Is there anything else I can try to get the old behaviour back? > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thanks > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- > >>> > > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > >>> > > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book) > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > >>> https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book) > >>> > >> > -- http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book)
