It also apparently doesn't allow emails big enough for the debug output.
Here's a link to a Google Doc with the output in:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TUPE4Qkc-zjKGCJnn0_YVMOfaLgzlF2YCFF9sz4LNcQ/edit?usp=sharing
I hope that works well enough, if not we'll have to work out some other
option..
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 at 14:01, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The mailing list usually strips out attachments. You'll need to paste it
> into the body of the email.
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 7:16 AM Dominic Humphries
> <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Fair enough! See attached, if that doesn't work I'll send it inline...
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 at 18:40, Gus Heck <gus.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, seeing the final expanded query may shed light on where the time is
> >> going, so voluminous output is good. Feel free to anonymize any customer
> >> names or sensitive information with "<REDACTED>" or similar.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 12:21 PM Dominic Humphries
> >> <domi...@adzuna.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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)
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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)
>
