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 Brent <br...@gmail.com> on 2016/12/09 01:08:22 UTC
"on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Is there a difference between an "on deck" searcher and a warming searcher?
From what I've read, they sound like the same thing.
--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/on-deck-searcher-vs-warming-searcher-tp4309021.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Yonik Seeley <ys...@gmail.com>.
We've got a patch to prevent the exceptions:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9712
-Yonik
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Joel Bernstein <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The question about allowing more the one on-deck searcher is a good one.
> The current behavior with maxWarmingSearcher config is to throw an
> exception if searchers are being opened too frequently. There is probably a
> good reason why it was done this way but I'm not sure the history behind it.
>
> Currently I'm adding code to Alfresco's version of Solr that guards against
> having more the one on-deck searcher. This allows users to set the commit
> intervals low without having to worry about getting overlapping searchers.
> Something like this might useful in the standard Solr as well, if people
> don't like exceptions being thrown when searchers are opened too frequently.
>
>
> Joel Bernstein
> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Trey Grainger <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Shawn and Joel both answered the question with seemingly opposite answers,
>> but Joel's should be right. On Deck, as an idiom, means "getting ready to
>> go next". I think it has it's history in military / naval terminology (a
>> plane being "on deck" of an aircraft carrier was the next one to take off),
>> and was later used heavily in baseball (the "on deck" batter was the one
>> warming up to go next) and probably elsewhere.
>>
>> I've always understood the "on deck" searcher(s) being the same as the
>> warming searcher(s). So you have the "active" searcher and them the warming
>> or on deck searchers.
>>
>> -Trey
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Jihwan:
>> >
>> > Correct. Do note that there are two distinct warnings here:
>> > 1> "Error opening new searcher. exceeded limit of
>> maxWarmingSearchers"....
>> > 2> "PERFORMANCE WARNING: Overlapping onDeckSearchers=..."
>> >
>> > in <1>, the new searcher is _not_ opened.
>> > in <2>, the new searcher _is_ opened.
>> >
>> > In practice, getting either warning is an indication of
>> > mis-configuration. Consider a very large filterCache with large
>> > autowarm values. Every new searcher will then allocate space for the
>> > filterCache so having <1> is there to prevent runaway situations that
>> > lead to OOM errors.
>> >
>> > <2> is just letting you know that you should look at your usage of
>> > commit so you can avoid <1>.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Erick
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Jihwan Kim <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > why is there a setting (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have
>> more
>> > > than one:
>> > > Isn't it also for a case of (frequent) update? For example, one update
>> is
>> > > committed. During the warming up for this commit, another update is
>> > > made. In this case the new commit also go through another warming. If
>> > the
>> > > value is 1, the second warming will fail. More number of concurrent
>> > > warming-up requires larger memory usage.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Erick Erickson <
>> erickerickson@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> bq: because shouldn't there only be one active
>> > >> searcher at a time?
>> > >>
>> > >> Kind of. This is a total nit, but there can be multiple
>> > >> searchers serving queries briefly (one hopes at least).
>> > >> S1 is serving some query when S2 becomes
>> > >> active and starts getting new queries. Until the last
>> > >> query S1 is serving is complete, they both are active.
>> > >>
>> > >> bq: why is there a setting
>> > >> (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets
>> > >> you have more than one
>> > >>
>> > >> The contract is that when you commit (assuming
>> > >> you're opening a new searcher), then all docs
>> > >> indexed up to that point are visible. Therefore you
>> > >> _must_ open a new searcher even if one is currently
>> > >> warming or that contract would be violated. Since
>> > >> warming can take minutes, not opening a new
>> > >> searcher if one was currently warming could cause
>> > >> quite a gap.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Best,
>> > >> Erick
>> > >>
>> > >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Brent <br...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> > Hmmm, conflicting answers. Given the infamous "PERFORMANCE WARNING:
>> > >> > Overlapping onDeckSearchers" log message, it seems like the "they're
>> > the
>> > >> > same" answer is probably correct, because shouldn't there only be
>> one
>> > >> active
>> > >> > searcher at a time?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Although it makes me curious, if there's a warning about having
>> > multiple
>> > >> > (overlapping) warming searchers, why is there a setting
>> > >> > (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more than one, or at
>> > least,
>> > >> > why ever set it to anything other than 1?
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.
>> > >> nabble.com/on-deck-searcher-vs-warming-searcher-
>> tp4309021p4309080.html
>> > >> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> > >>
>> >
>>
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Joel Bernstein <jo...@gmail.com>.
The question about allowing more the one on-deck searcher is a good one.
The current behavior with maxWarmingSearcher config is to throw an
exception if searchers are being opened too frequently. There is probably a
good reason why it was done this way but I'm not sure the history behind it.
Currently I'm adding code to Alfresco's version of Solr that guards against
having more the one on-deck searcher. This allows users to set the commit
intervals low without having to worry about getting overlapping searchers.
Something like this might useful in the standard Solr as well, if people
don't like exceptions being thrown when searchers are opened too frequently.
Joel Bernstein
http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Trey Grainger <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shawn and Joel both answered the question with seemingly opposite answers,
> but Joel's should be right. On Deck, as an idiom, means "getting ready to
> go next". I think it has it's history in military / naval terminology (a
> plane being "on deck" of an aircraft carrier was the next one to take off),
> and was later used heavily in baseball (the "on deck" batter was the one
> warming up to go next) and probably elsewhere.
>
> I've always understood the "on deck" searcher(s) being the same as the
> warming searcher(s). So you have the "active" searcher and them the warming
> or on deck searchers.
>
> -Trey
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Jihwan:
> >
> > Correct. Do note that there are two distinct warnings here:
> > 1> "Error opening new searcher. exceeded limit of
> maxWarmingSearchers"....
> > 2> "PERFORMANCE WARNING: Overlapping onDeckSearchers=..."
> >
> > in <1>, the new searcher is _not_ opened.
> > in <2>, the new searcher _is_ opened.
> >
> > In practice, getting either warning is an indication of
> > mis-configuration. Consider a very large filterCache with large
> > autowarm values. Every new searcher will then allocate space for the
> > filterCache so having <1> is there to prevent runaway situations that
> > lead to OOM errors.
> >
> > <2> is just letting you know that you should look at your usage of
> > commit so you can avoid <1>.
> >
> > Best,
> > Erick
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Jihwan Kim <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > why is there a setting (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have
> more
> > > than one:
> > > Isn't it also for a case of (frequent) update? For example, one update
> is
> > > committed. During the warming up for this commit, another update is
> > > made. In this case the new commit also go through another warming. If
> > the
> > > value is 1, the second warming will fail. More number of concurrent
> > > warming-up requires larger memory usage.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Erick Erickson <
> erickerickson@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> bq: because shouldn't there only be one active
> > >> searcher at a time?
> > >>
> > >> Kind of. This is a total nit, but there can be multiple
> > >> searchers serving queries briefly (one hopes at least).
> > >> S1 is serving some query when S2 becomes
> > >> active and starts getting new queries. Until the last
> > >> query S1 is serving is complete, they both are active.
> > >>
> > >> bq: why is there a setting
> > >> (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets
> > >> you have more than one
> > >>
> > >> The contract is that when you commit (assuming
> > >> you're opening a new searcher), then all docs
> > >> indexed up to that point are visible. Therefore you
> > >> _must_ open a new searcher even if one is currently
> > >> warming or that contract would be violated. Since
> > >> warming can take minutes, not opening a new
> > >> searcher if one was currently warming could cause
> > >> quite a gap.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Erick
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Brent <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> > Hmmm, conflicting answers. Given the infamous "PERFORMANCE WARNING:
> > >> > Overlapping onDeckSearchers" log message, it seems like the "they're
> > the
> > >> > same" answer is probably correct, because shouldn't there only be
> one
> > >> active
> > >> > searcher at a time?
> > >> >
> > >> > Although it makes me curious, if there's a warning about having
> > multiple
> > >> > (overlapping) warming searchers, why is there a setting
> > >> > (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more than one, or at
> > least,
> > >> > why ever set it to anything other than 1?
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.
> > >> nabble.com/on-deck-searcher-vs-warming-searcher-
> tp4309021p4309080.html
> > >> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >>
> >
>
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
: In a situation where searchers A-E are queued in the states
: A: Current
: B: Warming
: C: Ondeck
: D: Ondeck
: E: Being created with newSearcher
:
: wouldn't it make sense to discard C before it gets promoted to Warming,
: as the immediate action after warming C would be to start warming D?
:
: Are there some situations where the (potentially extremely short lived)
: C searcher must be visible before D replaces it?
In theory it might make sense to throw out C, but in practice:
1) since maxWarmingSearchers is typically a small value, E (and
sometimes D) are rarely created
2) because of how the code is structured, discarding C isn't
particularly easy ... the calls are happening in parallel threads, ie:
some Thread#1 is warming B while some thread #2 has just opened C and is
blocked on the single threaded warming executor while waiting to warm it.
When Thread #3 comes along and opens D, it also gets blocked on the same
executor.
We'd need to revamp that code in some way that the existence of Thread #3
(and beyond) while Thread #2 is queued up would cause Thread #2 to close C
(w/o warming it) and instead be blocked waiting for D to warm -- such that
once D completes warming both Thread #2 and Thread #3 both return D.
All of which is complicated by the fact that the code is actaully
returning the Searchers immediately, but also returning/setting a Future
ref that is what's waiting on the warming to finish -- so callers can
actaully use the searchers concurrently with the warming (ie:
useColdSearchers) if they wish.
So in a nutshell: yes, but it would be a pretty invasive change, and AFAIK
rarely impacts people who don't already have bigger problems.
-Hoss
http://www.lucidworks.com/
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Toke Eskildsen <te...@statsbiblioteket.dk>.
On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 16:07 -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> ** "warming" happens i na single threaded executor -- so if there
> are multiple ondeck searchers, only one of them at a time is ever a
> "warming" searcher
> ** multiple ondeck searchers can be a sign of a potential performance
> problem (hence the log warning) [...]
In a situation where searchers A-E are queued in the states
A: Current
B: Warming
C: Ondeck
D: Ondeck
E: Being created with newSearcher
wouldn't it make sense to discard C before it gets promoted to Warming,
as the immediate action after warming C would be to start warming D?
Are there some situations where the (potentially extremely short lived)
C searcher must be visible before D replaces it?
- Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Chris Hostetter <ho...@fucit.org>.
(disclaimer: i'm writing this all from memory, maybe there was some code
change at some point that i'm not aware of and i'm completley wrong)
: I've always understood the "on deck" searcher(s) being the same as the
: warming searcher(s). So you have the "active" searcher and them the warming
: or on deck searchers.
IIRC there is a subtle but significant distinction between "ondeck"
searchers and warming searchers -- namely: there is only ever one (ondeck)
searcher being warmed at a time, but there can be multiple ondeck
searchers *WAITING* to be warmed.
maxWarmingSearchers is in hindsight not the greatest name for that cnfig
option -- because there's never more then one searcher being warmed at
a time. it esentially means "max number of searchers i'm willing to let
queue up to be warmed"
Or to elaborate and put it all in context:
* There is only ever (at most) one "current" searcher:
** when a request comes in, it grabs a refrence to the current searcher
** when a "newSearcher" event finishes, the "current" searcher can be
replaced, but the (previous) searcher stays open as long as there are
requests in progress that have references to it
** for this reason: there can be multiple "active" searchers in use
* There can be any number of searchers ondeck:
** an ondeck searcher is created when a "newSearcher" event starts
** ondeck searchers can be "warmed up" based on the caches of the
"current" searcher, during which time they are considered
a "warming searcher"
** "warming" happens i na single threaded executor -- so if there are
multiple ondeck searchers, only one of them at a time is ever a "warming"
searcher
** multiple ondeck searchers can be a sign of a potential performance
problem (hence the log warning) because it means Solr knows you are
(currently) actively warming a seacher pointed at some commit point which
solr already knows is stale and plans to open another searcher immediatley
after it -- ie: commits are happening more frequently then searchers can
be warmed.
If you imagine a a scenerio where:
* search requests that take over 10 seconds happen continuously all day
* caches are sized such that warming a newSearcher takes 20 seconds
* you set maxWarmingSearchers=15
* openSearcher=true commits happen once per second
Then if i'm not mistaken you would be in a situation where there would be
10 "active" searchers (the newest of which is "current"), 15 "ondeck"
searchers (the oldest of which would be currently be a "warming" searcher
-Hoss
http://www.lucidworks.com/
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Trey Grainger <so...@gmail.com>.
Shawn and Joel both answered the question with seemingly opposite answers,
but Joel's should be right. On Deck, as an idiom, means "getting ready to
go next". I think it has it's history in military / naval terminology (a
plane being "on deck" of an aircraft carrier was the next one to take off),
and was later used heavily in baseball (the "on deck" batter was the one
warming up to go next) and probably elsewhere.
I've always understood the "on deck" searcher(s) being the same as the
warming searcher(s). So you have the "active" searcher and them the warming
or on deck searchers.
-Trey
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Jihwan:
>
> Correct. Do note that there are two distinct warnings here:
> 1> "Error opening new searcher. exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers"....
> 2> "PERFORMANCE WARNING: Overlapping onDeckSearchers=..."
>
> in <1>, the new searcher is _not_ opened.
> in <2>, the new searcher _is_ opened.
>
> In practice, getting either warning is an indication of
> mis-configuration. Consider a very large filterCache with large
> autowarm values. Every new searcher will then allocate space for the
> filterCache so having <1> is there to prevent runaway situations that
> lead to OOM errors.
>
> <2> is just letting you know that you should look at your usage of
> commit so you can avoid <1>.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Jihwan Kim <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > why is there a setting (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more
> > than one:
> > Isn't it also for a case of (frequent) update? For example, one update is
> > committed. During the warming up for this commit, another update is
> > made. In this case the new commit also go through another warming. If
> the
> > value is 1, the second warming will fail. More number of concurrent
> > warming-up requires larger memory usage.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> bq: because shouldn't there only be one active
> >> searcher at a time?
> >>
> >> Kind of. This is a total nit, but there can be multiple
> >> searchers serving queries briefly (one hopes at least).
> >> S1 is serving some query when S2 becomes
> >> active and starts getting new queries. Until the last
> >> query S1 is serving is complete, they both are active.
> >>
> >> bq: why is there a setting
> >> (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets
> >> you have more than one
> >>
> >> The contract is that when you commit (assuming
> >> you're opening a new searcher), then all docs
> >> indexed up to that point are visible. Therefore you
> >> _must_ open a new searcher even if one is currently
> >> warming or that contract would be violated. Since
> >> warming can take minutes, not opening a new
> >> searcher if one was currently warming could cause
> >> quite a gap.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Erick
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Brent <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hmmm, conflicting answers. Given the infamous "PERFORMANCE WARNING:
> >> > Overlapping onDeckSearchers" log message, it seems like the "they're
> the
> >> > same" answer is probably correct, because shouldn't there only be one
> >> active
> >> > searcher at a time?
> >> >
> >> > Although it makes me curious, if there's a warning about having
> multiple
> >> > (overlapping) warming searchers, why is there a setting
> >> > (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more than one, or at
> least,
> >> > why ever set it to anything other than 1?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.
> >> nabble.com/on-deck-searcher-vs-warming-searcher-tp4309021p4309080.html
> >> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
>
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.
Jihwan:
Correct. Do note that there are two distinct warnings here:
1> "Error opening new searcher. exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers"....
2> "PERFORMANCE WARNING: Overlapping onDeckSearchers=..."
in <1>, the new searcher is _not_ opened.
in <2>, the new searcher _is_ opened.
In practice, getting either warning is an indication of
mis-configuration. Consider a very large filterCache with large
autowarm values. Every new searcher will then allocate space for the
filterCache so having <1> is there to prevent runaway situations that
lead to OOM errors.
<2> is just letting you know that you should look at your usage of
commit so you can avoid <1>.
Best,
Erick
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Jihwan Kim <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why is there a setting (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more
> than one:
> Isn't it also for a case of (frequent) update? For example, one update is
> committed. During the warming up for this commit, another update is
> made. In this case the new commit also go through another warming. If the
> value is 1, the second warming will fail. More number of concurrent
> warming-up requires larger memory usage.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> bq: because shouldn't there only be one active
>> searcher at a time?
>>
>> Kind of. This is a total nit, but there can be multiple
>> searchers serving queries briefly (one hopes at least).
>> S1 is serving some query when S2 becomes
>> active and starts getting new queries. Until the last
>> query S1 is serving is complete, they both are active.
>>
>> bq: why is there a setting
>> (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets
>> you have more than one
>>
>> The contract is that when you commit (assuming
>> you're opening a new searcher), then all docs
>> indexed up to that point are visible. Therefore you
>> _must_ open a new searcher even if one is currently
>> warming or that contract would be violated. Since
>> warming can take minutes, not opening a new
>> searcher if one was currently warming could cause
>> quite a gap.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Erick
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Brent <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hmmm, conflicting answers. Given the infamous "PERFORMANCE WARNING:
>> > Overlapping onDeckSearchers" log message, it seems like the "they're the
>> > same" answer is probably correct, because shouldn't there only be one
>> active
>> > searcher at a time?
>> >
>> > Although it makes me curious, if there's a warning about having multiple
>> > (overlapping) warming searchers, why is there a setting
>> > (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more than one, or at least,
>> > why ever set it to anything other than 1?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.
>> nabble.com/on-deck-searcher-vs-warming-searcher-tp4309021p4309080.html
>> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Jihwan Kim <ji...@gmail.com>.
why is there a setting (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more
than one:
Isn't it also for a case of (frequent) update? For example, one update is
committed. During the warming up for this commit, another update is
made. In this case the new commit also go through another warming. If the
value is 1, the second warming will fail. More number of concurrent
warming-up requires larger memory usage.
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> bq: because shouldn't there only be one active
> searcher at a time?
>
> Kind of. This is a total nit, but there can be multiple
> searchers serving queries briefly (one hopes at least).
> S1 is serving some query when S2 becomes
> active and starts getting new queries. Until the last
> query S1 is serving is complete, they both are active.
>
> bq: why is there a setting
> (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets
> you have more than one
>
> The contract is that when you commit (assuming
> you're opening a new searcher), then all docs
> indexed up to that point are visible. Therefore you
> _must_ open a new searcher even if one is currently
> warming or that contract would be violated. Since
> warming can take minutes, not opening a new
> searcher if one was currently warming could cause
> quite a gap.
>
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Brent <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm, conflicting answers. Given the infamous "PERFORMANCE WARNING:
> > Overlapping onDeckSearchers" log message, it seems like the "they're the
> > same" answer is probably correct, because shouldn't there only be one
> active
> > searcher at a time?
> >
> > Although it makes me curious, if there's a warning about having multiple
> > (overlapping) warming searchers, why is there a setting
> > (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more than one, or at least,
> > why ever set it to anything other than 1?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.
> nabble.com/on-deck-searcher-vs-warming-searcher-tp4309021p4309080.html
> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Erick Erickson <er...@gmail.com>.
bq: because shouldn't there only be one active
searcher at a time?
Kind of. This is a total nit, but there can be multiple
searchers serving queries briefly (one hopes at least).
S1 is serving some query when S2 becomes
active and starts getting new queries. Until the last
query S1 is serving is complete, they both are active.
bq: why is there a setting
(maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets
you have more than one
The contract is that when you commit (assuming
you're opening a new searcher), then all docs
indexed up to that point are visible. Therefore you
_must_ open a new searcher even if one is currently
warming or that contract would be violated. Since
warming can take minutes, not opening a new
searcher if one was currently warming could cause
quite a gap.
Best,
Erick
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Brent <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hmmm, conflicting answers. Given the infamous "PERFORMANCE WARNING:
> Overlapping onDeckSearchers" log message, it seems like the "they're the
> same" answer is probably correct, because shouldn't there only be one active
> searcher at a time?
>
> Although it makes me curious, if there's a warning about having multiple
> (overlapping) warming searchers, why is there a setting
> (maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more than one, or at least,
> why ever set it to anything other than 1?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/on-deck-searcher-vs-warming-searcher-tp4309021p4309080.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Brent <br...@gmail.com>.
Hmmm, conflicting answers. Given the infamous "PERFORMANCE WARNING:
Overlapping onDeckSearchers" log message, it seems like the "they're the
same" answer is probably correct, because shouldn't there only be one active
searcher at a time?
Although it makes me curious, if there's a warning about having multiple
(overlapping) warming searchers, why is there a setting
(maxWarmingSearchers) that even lets you have more than one, or at least,
why ever set it to anything other than 1?
--
View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/on-deck-searcher-vs-warming-searcher-tp4309021p4309080.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Joel Bernstein <jo...@gmail.com>.
An on-deck searcher is not yet the active searcher. The SolrCore increments
the on-deck searcher count prior to starting the warming process. Unless
it's the first searcher, a new searcher will be warmed and then registered.
Once registered the searcher becomes active.
So, the initial question: is an on-deck searcher a warming searcher: the
answer is basically yes.
Joel Bernstein
http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 12/8/2016 6:08 PM, Brent wrote:
> > Is there a difference between an "on deck" searcher and a warming
> > searcher? From what I've read, they sound like the same thing.
>
> The on-deck searcher is the one that's active and serving queries. A
> warming searcher is one that is still coming up. As soon as the oldest
> warming searcher is ready, it becomes the on-deck searcher and the old
> one is thrown away.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>
Re: "on deck" searcher vs warming searcher
Posted by Shawn Heisey <ap...@elyograg.org>.
On 12/8/2016 6:08 PM, Brent wrote:
> Is there a difference between an "on deck" searcher and a warming
> searcher? From what I've read, they sound like the same thing.
The on-deck searcher is the one that's active and serving queries. A
warming searcher is one that is still coming up. As soon as the oldest
warming searcher is ready, it becomes the on-deck searcher and the old
one is thrown away.
Thanks,
Shawn