Yes, sorry, not cloud, afaik it's single-sharded. Same query with facet fields removed takes just as long to run. Adding the debug to the request generates a rather large amount of output, I believe due to synonyms - I can send them if it's useful, but it's rather a lot?
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 15:37, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ok so that's 7M docs at 3k/doc... a relatively reasonable index (at least > if the hardware is reasonable, and you say it did work on 8.11 so that's > probably fine). > > By your reply I assume it's single sharded and not using cloud/zookeeper? > > The request you showed has a lot of facets on it. How much difference does > it make to the situation if you just send the query without the facets? > > Also add &debug=query and send us the debug output from the header when you > do that... > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 9:31 AM Dominic Humphries > <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > Sure: > > "index":{ > > "numDocs":7349353, > > "maxDoc":7834951, > > "deletedDocs":485598, > > "segmentCount":31, > > "segmentsFileSizeInBytes":2727, > > "sizeInBytes":22066572844, > > "size":"20.55 GB" > > > > On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 13:27, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work) > https://a.co/d/b2sZLD9 (my fantasy fiction book) >