You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to solr-user@lucene.apache.org by Robert Purdy <rd...@gmail.com> on 2009/06/03 23:52:49 UTC
Which caches should use the solr.FastLRUCache
Hey there,
Anyone got any advice on which caches (filterCache, queryResultCache,
documentCache, fieldValueCache) should be implemented using the
solr.FastLRUCache in solr 1.4 and what are the pros & cons
vs the solr.LRUCache.
Thanks Robert.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Which-caches-should-use-the-solr.FastLRUCache-tp23860182p23860182.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Which caches should use the solr.FastLRUCache
Posted by Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <no...@corp.aol.com>.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Robert Purdy <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the Good information :) Well I haven't had any evictions in any of
> the caches in years, but the hit ratio is 0.51 in queryResultCache, 0.77 in
> documentCache, 1.00 in the fieldValueCache, and 0.99 in the filterCache. So
> in your opinion should the documentCache and queryResultCache use the old
> way on a single CPU quad core machine?
>
> Also right now I have all caches using the solr.FastLRUCache (tried with
> both the cleanupThread = false or true) and I have noticed some queries that
> are taking 53 ms on a freshly warmed new searcher (when nothing else is
> querying the slave), but when the slave is busy the same query, that should
> be using the caches, is sometimes taking 8 secs? Any thoughts?
This overhead may not be because of the cache itself. Some queries are
definitely missing the cache and they are likely to take time. if
cleanupThread=true, then no eviction should take more time
>
> Thanks Robert.
>
>
> Yonik Seeley-2 wrote:
>>
>> 2009/6/4 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <no...@corp.aol.com>:
>>> FastLRUCache is designed to be lock free so it is well suited for
>>> caches which are hit several times in a request. I guess there is no
>>> harm in using FastLRUCache across all the caches.
>>
>> Gets are cheaper, but evictions are more expensive. If the cache hit
>> rate is low, the old synchronized cache may be faster, unless you have
>> a ton of CPUs... not sure where the crossover point is though.
>>
>> -Yonik
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Which-caches-should-use-the-solr.FastLRUCache-tp23860182p23874898.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com
Re: Which caches should use the solr.FastLRUCache
Posted by Robert Purdy <rd...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the Good information :) Well I haven't had any evictions in any of
the caches in years, but the hit ratio is 0.51 in queryResultCache, 0.77 in
documentCache, 1.00 in the fieldValueCache, and 0.99 in the filterCache. So
in your opinion should the documentCache and queryResultCache use the old
way on a single CPU quad core machine?
Also right now I have all caches using the solr.FastLRUCache (tried with
both the cleanupThread = false or true) and I have noticed some queries that
are taking 53 ms on a freshly warmed new searcher (when nothing else is
querying the slave), but when the slave is busy the same query, that should
be using the caches, is sometimes taking 8 secs? Any thoughts?
Thanks Robert.
Yonik Seeley-2 wrote:
>
> 2009/6/4 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <no...@corp.aol.com>:
>> FastLRUCache is designed to be lock free so it is well suited for
>> caches which are hit several times in a request. I guess there is no
>> harm in using FastLRUCache across all the caches.
>
> Gets are cheaper, but evictions are more expensive. If the cache hit
> rate is low, the old synchronized cache may be faster, unless you have
> a ton of CPUs... not sure where the crossover point is though.
>
> -Yonik
> http://www.lucidimagination.com
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Which-caches-should-use-the-solr.FastLRUCache-tp23860182p23874898.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Which caches should use the solr.FastLRUCache
Posted by Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>.
2009/6/4 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <no...@corp.aol.com>:
> FastLRUCache is designed to be lock free so it is well suited for
> caches which are hit several times in a request. I guess there is no
> harm in using FastLRUCache across all the caches.
Gets are cheaper, but evictions are more expensive. If the cache hit
rate is low, the old synchronized cache may be faster, unless you have
a ton of CPUs... not sure where the crossover point is though.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Re: Which caches should use the solr.FastLRUCache
Posted by Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <no...@corp.aol.com>.
FastLRUCache is designed to be lock free so it is well suited for
caches which are hit several times in a request. I guess there is no
harm in using FastLRUCache across all the caches.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Robert Purdy <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey there,
>
> Anyone got any advice on which caches (filterCache, queryResultCache,
> documentCache, fieldValueCache) should be implemented using the
> solr.FastLRUCache in solr 1.4 and what are the pros & cons
> vs the solr.LRUCache.
>
> Thanks Robert.
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Which-caches-should-use-the-solr.FastLRUCache-tp23860182p23860182.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Noble Paul | Principal Engineer| AOL | http://aol.com