Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Lucene and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Solr, mail # user - Benchmark Solr vs Elastic Search vs Sensei


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Benchmark Solr vs Elastic Search vs Sensei
Erick Erickson 2012-04-27, 12:25
Some observations:
1> I suspect some of your queries aren't doing what you expect, but
     I'm not sure if that matters. e.g. !tags:chick magnet will be parsed
     as -tags:chick defaultField:magnet.
2> Typical Solr setups in production are usually master/slave
     setups. Your indexing process (the commits) are causing
     new searchers to be opened/warmed/etc quite regularly,
     reducing your throughput. It's not surprising at all that
     your QPS rate increases when not indexing.
3> The trunk Near Real Time with "soft commits" should change
     the characteristics of the test with background indexing. You
     might try that.
4> Examine your cache usage, see the Solr admin page. Caches
     are quite important. Also consider autowarming characteristics.
5> There's a ton of stuff you can do to tune query rate. Unfortunately
     what the specific thing that would help your situation is hard to
     say. You might start with:
    http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ImproveSearchingSpeed

Best
Erick

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Volodymyr Zhabiuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Solr users
>
> I've implemented the project to compare the performance between
> Solr, Elastic Search and SenseiDB
> https://github.com/vzhabiuk/search-perf
>  the Solr version 3.5.0 was used. I've used the default configuration,
> just enabled json updates and used the following schema
> https://github.com/vzhabiuk/search-perf/blob/master/configs/solr/schema.xml.
> 2.5 mln documents were put into the index, after
> that I've launched the indexing process to add anotherr 500k docs. I
> was issuing commits after each 500 doc batch . At the
> same time I've launched the concurrent client, that sent the
> following type of queries
> ((tags:moon-roof%20or%20tags:electric%20or%20tags:highend%20or%20tags:hybrid)%20AND%20(!tags:family%20AND%20!tags:chick%20magnet%20AND%20!tags:soccer%20mom))%20
> OR%20((color:red%20or%20color:green%20or%20color:white%20or%20color:yellow)%20AND%20(!color:gold%20AND%20!color:silver%20AND%20!color:black))%20
> OR%20mileage:[15001%20TO%2017500]%20OR%20mileage:[17501%20TO%20*]%20
> OR%20city:u.s.a.*
> &facet=true&facet.field=tags&facet.field=color
> The query contains the high level "OR" query, consisting of 2 terms, 2
> ranges and 1 prefix. It is designed to hit ~60-70% of all the docs
> Here is the performance result:
> #Threads     min       median         mean            75%         qps
>   1         208.95ms  332.66ms    350.48ms     422.92ms     2.8
>   2         188.68ms  338.09ms    339.22ms     402.15ms     5.9
>   3         151.06ms  326.64ms    336.20ms     418.61ms     8.8
>   4         125.13ms  332.90ms    332.18ms     396.14ms     12.0
> If there is no  indexing process on background
> The result is as follows for 2,6 mln docs:
> #Threads     min     median          mean             75%         qps
>   1         106.70ms  199.66ms    199.40ms     234.89ms     5.1
>   2         128.61ms  199.12ms    201.81ms     229.89ms     9.9
>   3         110.99ms  197.43ms    203.13ms     232.25ms     14.7
>   4         90.24ms    201.46ms      200.46ms     227.75ms     19.9
>   5         106.14ms  208.75ms    207.69ms     242.88ms     24.0
>   6         103.75ms  208.91ms    211.23ms     238.60ms     28.3
>   7         113.54ms  207.07ms    209.69ms     239.99ms     33.3
>   8         117.32ms  216.38ms    224.74ms     258.74ms     35.5
> I've got three questions so far:
> 1. In case of background indexing the latency is almost 2 times
> higher, is there any way to overcome this?
> 2. How can we tune the Solr to get better results ?
> 3. What's in your opinion is the preferred type of queries that I can
> use for the benchmark?
>
> With many thanks,
> Volodymyr
>
>
> BTW here is the spec of my machine
> RedHat 6.1 64bit
> Intel XEON e5620 @2.40 GHz, 8 cores
> 63 GB RAM