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 sundar shankar <su...@hotmail.com> on 2008/08/05 19:51:16 UTC

RE: Out of memory on Solr sorting

Hi all,
        I seemed to have found the solution to this problem. Apparently, allocating enough virtual memory on the server seems to only solve on half of the problem. Even after allocating 4 gigs of Virtual memory on jboss server, I still did get the Out of memory on sorting. 
 
I didn't how ever notice that the LRU cache on my config was set to default which was still 512 megs of max memory. I had to increase that to a round 2 gigs and the sorting did work perfectly ok.
 
Even though I am satisfied that I have found the solution to the problem, i am still not satisfied to know that Sort consumes so much memory. In no products have I seen sorting 10 fields take up 1 gig and half of virtual memory. I am not sure, if there could be a better implementation of this. But something doesn't seem right to me.
 
Thanks for all your support. It has truly been overwhelming.
 
Sundar



> From: goksron@gmail.com> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org> Subject: RE: Out of memory on Solr sorting> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:43:05 -0700> > A sneaky source of OutOfMemory errors is the permanent generation. If you> add this:> -XX:PermSize=64m -XX:MaxPermSize=96m> You will increase the size of the permanent generation. We found this> helped.> > Also note that when you undeploy a war file, the old deployment has> permanent storage that is not reclaimed, and so each undeploy/redeploy cycle> eats up the permanent generation pool.> > -----Original Message-----> From: david w [mailto:lovesolr@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:20 AM> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org> Subject: Re: Out of memory on Solr sorting> > Hi, Daniel> > I got the same probem like Sundar. Is that possible to tell me what> profiling tool you are using?> > thx a lot.> > /David> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Daniel Alheiros> <Da...@bbc.co.uk>wrote:> > > Hi Sundar.> >> > Well it would be good if you could do some profiling on your Solr app.> > I've done it during the indexing process so I could figure out what > > was going on in the OutOfMemoryErrors I was getting.> >> > But you won't definitelly need to have as much memory as your whole > > index size. I have a 3.5 million documents (aprox. 10Gb) running on > > this 2Gb heap VM.> >> > Cheers,> > Daniel> >> > -----Original Message-----> > From: sundar shankar [mailto:sunaish_3000@hotmail.com]> > Sent: 23 July 2008 23:45> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > Subject: RE: Out of memory on Solr sorting> >> >> > Hi Daniel,> > I am afraid that didnt solve my problem. I was guessing my > > problem was that I have too much of data and too little memory > > allocated for that. I happened to read in couple of the posts which > > mentioned that I need VM that is close to the size of my data(folder). > > I have like 540 Megs now and a little more than a million and a half > > docs. Ideally in that case 512 megs should be enough for me. In fact I > > am able to perform all other operations now, commit, optmize, select, > > update, nightly cron jobs to index data again. etc etc with no > > hassles. Even my load tests perform very well. Just the sort and it > > doesnt seem to work. I allocated> > 2 gigs of memory now. Still same results. Used the GC params u gave me > > too. No change what so ever. Am not sure, whats going on. Is there > > something that I can do to find out how much is needed in actuality as > > my production server might need to be configured in accordance.> >> > I dont store any documents. We basically fetch standard column data > > from oracle database store them into Solr fields. Before I had > > EdgeNGram configured and had Solr 1.2, My data size was less that half > > of what it is right now. I guess if I remember right, it was of the > > order of 100 megs. The max size of a field right now might not cross a 100> chars too.> > Quizzled even more now.> >> > -Sundar> >> > P.S: My configurations :> > Solr 1.3> > Red hat> > 540 megs of data (1855013 docs)> > 2 gigs of memory installed and allocated like this > > JAVA_OPTS=$JAVA_OPTS -Xms2048m -Xmx2048m -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio=50 > > -XX:NewSize=1024m> > -XX:NewRatio=2 -Dsun.rmi.dgc.client.gcInterval=3600000> > -Dsun.rmi.dgc.server.gcInterval=3600000> >> > Jboss 4.05> >> >> > > Subject: RE: Out of memory on Solr sorting> > > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:49:06 +0100> > > From: Daniel.Alheiros@bbc.co.uk> > > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > >> > > Hi> > >> > > I haven't read the whole thread so I will take my chances here.> > >> > > I've been fighting recently to keep my Solr instances stable because > > > they were frequently crashing with OutOfMemoryErrors. I'm using Solr> > > 1.2 and when it happens there is a bug that makes the index locked > > > unless you restart Solr... So in my cenario it was extremelly> > damaging.> > >> > > After some profiling I realized that my major problem was caused by > > > the way the JVM heap was being used as I haven't configured it to > > > run using any advanced configuration (I had just made it bigger - > > > Xmx and Xms 1.5 Gb), it's running on Sun JVM 1.5 (the most recent > > > 1.5> > > available) and it's deployed on a Jboss 4.2 on a RHEL.> > >> > > So my findings were too many objects were being allocated on the old > > > generation area of the heap, which makes them harder to be disposed, > > > and also the default behaviour was letting the heap get too filled > > > up before kicking a GC and according to the JVM specs the default is > > > if after a short period when a full gc is executed if a certain > > > percentage of the heap is not freed an OutOfMemoryError should be> > thrown.> > >> > > I've changed my JVM startup params and it's working extremelly > > > stable since then:> > >> > > -Xmx2048m -Xms2048m -XX:MinHeapFreeRatio=50 -XX:NewSize=1024m> > > -XX:NewRatio=2 -Dsun.rmi.dgc.client.gcInterval=3600000> > > -Dsun.rmi.dgc.server.gcInterval=3600000> > >> > > I hope it helps.> > >> > > Regards,> > > Daniel Alheiros> > >> > > -----Original Message-----> > > From: Fuad Efendi [mailto:fuad@efendi.ca]> > > Sent: 22 July 2008 23:23> > > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org> > > Subject: RE: Out of memory on Solr sorting> > >> > > Yes, it is a cache, it stores "sorted" by "sorted field" array of > > > Document IDs together with sorted fields; query results can > > > intersect with it and reorder accordingly.> > >> > > But memory requirements should be well documented.> > >> > > It uses internally WeakHashMap which is not good(!!!) - a lot of > > > "underground" warming ups of caches which SOLR is not aware of...> > > Could be.> > >> > > I think Lucene-SOLR developers should join this discussion:> > >> > >> > > /**> > > * Expert: The default cache implementation, storing all values in > > > memory.> > > * A WeakHashMap is used for storage.> > > *> > > ..............> > >> > > // inherit javadocs> > > public StringIndex getStringIndex(IndexReader reader, String field)> > > throws IOException {> > > return (StringIndex) stringsIndexCache.get(reader, field);> > > }> > >> > > Cache stringsIndexCache = new Cache() {> > >> > > protected Object createValue(IndexReader reader, Object fieldKey)> > > throws IOException {> > > String field = ((String) fieldKey).intern();> > > final int[] retArray = new int[reader.maxDoc()];> > > String[] mterms = new String[reader.maxDoc()+1];> > > TermDocs termDocs = reader.termDocs();> > > TermEnum termEnum = reader.terms (new Term (field, "")); > > > ....................> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Quoting Fuad Efendi <fu...@efendi.ca>:> > >> > > > I am hoping [new StringIndex (retArray, mterms)] is called only > > > > once> >> > > > per-sort-field and cached somewhere at Lucene;> > > >> > > > theoretically you need multiply number of documents on size of > > > > field> >> > > > (supposing that field contains unique text); you need not tokenize > > > > this field; you need not store TermVector.> > > >> > > > for 2 000 000 documents with simple untokenized text field such as > > > > title of book (256 bytes) you need probably 512 000 000 bytes per > > > > Searcher, and as Mark mentioned you should limit number of > > > > searchers> >> > > > in SOLR.> > > >> > > > So that Xmx512M is definitely not enough even for simple cases...> > > >> > > >> > > > Quoting sundar shankar <su...@hotmail.com>:> > > >> > > >> I haven't seen the source code before, But I don't know why the > > > >> sorting isn't done after the fetch is done. Wouldn't that make it> >> > > >> more faster. at least in case of field level sorting? I could be> >> > > >> wrong too and the implementation might probably be better. But > > > >> don't know why all of the fields have had to be loaded.> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:26:26 -0700> From: fuad@efendi.ca> To:> >> > > >>> solr-user@lucene.apache.org> Subject: Re: Out of memory on Solr> >> > > >>> sorting> > > Ok, after some analysis of FieldCacheImpl:> > - it > > > >>> sorting> > > is> > > >>> supposed that (sorted) Enumeration of "terms" is less than > > > > >>> total number of documents> (so that SOLR uses specific field > > > >>> type> >> > > >>> for sorted searches: > solr.StrField with omitNorms="true")> >> > > >>> It creates int[reader.maxDoc()] array, checks (sorted)> > > >>> Enumeration of > "terms" (untokenized solr.StrField), and > > > >>> populates array with document > Ids.> > > - it also creates > > > >>> array of String> String[] mterms = new > > > >>> String[reader.maxDoc()+1];> > Why> > >> > > >>> do we need that? For 1G> > > >>> document with average term/StrField size > of 100 bytes (which > > > >>> could be unique text!!!) it will create kind of > huge 100Gb > > > >>> cache> > >> > > >>> which is not really needed...> StringIndex value = new > > > >>> StringIndex> > >> > > >>> (retArray, mterms);> > If I understand correctly...> > > >>> StringIndex _must_ be a file in a > filesystem for such a> > case...> > > >>> We create StringIndex, and retrieve top > 10 documents, huge > > > >>> overhead.> > > >> > > >>>> > Quoting Fuad Efendi <fu...@efendi.ca>:> > >> > Ok, what is> > > >>> confusing me is implicit guess that FieldCache contains> > "field"> >> > > >>> and Lucene uses in-memory sort instead of using file-system> >> >> > > >>> "index".......> >> > Array syze: 100Mb (25M x 4 bytes), and it > > > >>> is> >> > > >>> just pointers (4-byte> > integers) to documents in index.> >> >> >> > > >>> org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$10.createValue> > ...> >> >> > > >>> 357: protected Object createValue(IndexReader reader, Object > > > >>> fieldKey)> > 358: throws IOException {> > 359: String field => > > >>> ((String) fieldKey).intern();> > 360: final int[] retArray = new> >> > > >>> int[reader.maxDoc()]; // > > OutOfMemoryError!!!> > ...> > 408:> >> > > >>> StringIndex value = new StringIndex (retArray, mterms);> > 409:> >> > > >>> return value;> > 410: }> > ...> >> > It's very confusing, I > > > >>> don't> >> > > >>> know such internals...> >> >> >>>>> <field name="XXX"> > > >>> type="string" indexed="true" stored="true" > >>>>> > > > >>> termVectors="true"/>> >>>>> The sorting is done based on string> >> > > >>> field.> >> >> > I think Sundar should not use > > > >>> [termVectors="true"]...> >> >> >> > Quoting Mark Miller > > > >>> <ma...@gmail.com>:> >> >> Hmmm...I think its 32bits an > > > >>> integer with an index entry for each doc, so> >>> >>> >> **25 > > > >>> 000> >> > > >>> 000 x 32 bits = 95.3674316 megabytes**> >>> >> Then you have > > > >>> the> >> > > >>> string array that contains each unique term from your> >> > > > >>> index...you can guess that based on the number of terms in your> >> > > >>> index> >> and an avg length guess.> >>> >> There is some other> > > >>> overhead beyond the sort cache as well, but thats> >> the bulk > > > >>> of> >> > > >>> what it will add. I think my memory may be bad with my> >> > > > >>> original estimate :)> >>> >> Fuad Efendi wrote:> >>> Thank you > > > >>> very much Mark,> >>>> >>> it explains me a lot;> >>>> >>> I am> > > >>> guessing: for 1,000,000 documents with a [string] field of > > > > >>> >>>> >> > > >>> average size 1024 bytes I need 1Gb for single IndexSearcher > > > > >>> >>>> >> > > >>> instance; field-level cache it is used internally by Lucene > > > >>> (can > >>> Lucene manage size if it?); we can't have 1G of > > > >>> such documents > >>> without having 1Tb RAM...> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> >>> Quoting Mark Miller <ma...@gmail.com>:> >>>> >>>> > > > >>> Fuad Efendi wrote:> >>>>>> SEVERE: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError:> > > >>> allocLargeObjectOrArray - Object> >>>>>> size: 100767936, Num> > > >>> elements: 25191979> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> I just noticed, this is an exact number of documents > > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>> in> > > >>> index: 25191979> >>>>>> >>>>> (http://www.tokenizer.org/, you > > > >>> can> >> > > >>> sort - click headers Id, > >>>>> [COuntry, Site, Price] in a > > > >>> table; experimental)> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> If array is allocated> >> > > >>> ONLY on new searcher warming up I am > >>>>> _extremely_ happy...> >> > > >>> I had constant OOMs during past month (SUN > >>>>> Java 5).> > > > >>> >>>>> >> > > >>> It is only on warmup - I believe its lazy loaded, so the first> >> > > >>> time a> >>>> search is done (solr does the search as part of > > > >>> warmup I believe) the> >>>> fieldcache is loaded. The > > > >>> underlying> >> > > >>> IndexReader is the key to the>> > > >>>>>>> fieldcache, so until you get a new IndexReader > > > >>>>>>> (SolrSearcher in> > > >>> solr> >>>> world?) the field cache will be good. Keep in mind> > > >>> that as a searcher> >>>> is warming, the other search is still > > > >>> serving, so that will up the ram> >>>> requirements...and since > > > >>> I> >> > > >>> think you can have >1 searchers on> >>>> deck...you get the > > > >>> idea.> >>>>> >>>> As far as the number I gave, thats from a > > > >>> memory made months and months> >>>> ago, so go with what you > > > >>> see.> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Quoting Fuad Efendi <fu...@efendi.ca>:> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've > > > >>>>>>>> even> > > >>> seen exceptions (posted here) when "sort"-type queries caused>> > > >>>>>>>>> Lucene to allocate 100Mb arrays, here is what happened to> > > >>> me:> >>>>>>> >>>>>> SEVERE: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError:> > > >>> allocLargeObjectOrArray - Object> >>>>>> size: 100767936, Num> > > >>> elements: 25191979> >>>>>> at> >>>>>>> > > >>>> > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$10.createValue(FieldCacheImpl.> > > ja> > > va:360) > >>>>>> at> >>>>>>> > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$Cache.get(FieldCacheImpl.java:> > > 72> > > ) - it does not happen after I increased from 4096M to 8192M > > > > >>>>>> (JRockit> >>>>>> R27; more intelligent stacktrace, isn't > > > it?)> >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> Thanks Mark; I didn't know that it happens only once (on > > > >>>>>> warming> > > up a> >>>>>> searcher).> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Quoting Mark > > > Miller <ma...@gmail.com>:> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because to sort > > > efficiently, Solr loads the term to sort on for each> >>>>>>> doc in > > > the index into an array. For ints,longs, etc its just an array>> > > >>>>>>> the size of the number of docs in your index (i believe> > > deleted or> >>>>>>> not). For a String its an array to hold each > > > unique string and an array>> > > >>>>>>> of ints indexing into the String array.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> So > > > >>>>>>> if> > > you do a sort, and search for something that only gets 1 doc as a>> > > >>>>>>> hit...your still loading up that field cache for every > > > >>>>>>> single> > > doc in> >>>>>>> your index on the first search. With solr, this > > > happens in the> >>>>>>> background as it warms up the searcher. The > > > end story is, you need more> >>>>>>> RAM to accommodate the sort > > > most likely...have you upped your xmx> >>>>>>> setting? I think you > > > can roughly say a 2 million doc index would need> >>>>>>> 40-50 MB > > > (depending and rough, but to give an idea) per field your> >>>>>>> > > > sorting on.> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Mark> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sundar > > > shankar wrote:> >>>>>>>> Thanks Fuad.> >>>>>>>> But why does just > > > sorting provide an OOM. I > >>>>>>>> executed the query without > > > adding the sort clause it executed > >>>>>>>> perfectly. In fact I > > > even tried remove the maxrows=10 and > >>>>>>>> executed. it came out> fine.> > > Queries with bigger results > >>>>>>>> seems to come out fine too. > > > But> >> > > why just sort of that too > >>>>>>>> just 10 rows??> >>>>>>>> > > > -Sundar>> >> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008> > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 12:24:35> > > -0700> From: fuad@efendi.ca> > >>>>>>>>> To:> > > solr-user@lucene.apache.org> Subject: RE: Out of > >>>>>>>>> memory > > > on> >> > > Solr sorting> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$10.createValue(FieldCacheImpl.> > > ja va:403)> > - this piece of code do not request Array[100M] (as I > > > seen with > Lucene), it asks only few bytes / Kb for a field...> > > > > > Probably> > > 128 - 512 is not enough; it is also advisable to use equal sizes> > > > -Xms1024M -Xmx1024M> (it minimizes GC frequency, and itensures that > > > 1024M is available at startup)> > OOM happens also with fragmented > > > memory, when application requests big > contigues fragment and GC is > > > unable to optimize; looks like your > application requests a little > > > and memory is not available...> > > Quoting sundar shankar > > > <su...@hotmail.com>:> > >> >> >> >> From:> > > sunaish_3000@hotmail.com> >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org> >>> > > Subject: Out of memory on Solr sorting> >> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008> > > 19:11:02 +0000> >>> >>> >> Hi,> >> Sorry again fellos. I am not sure > > > whats happening. The day with > >> solr is bad for me I guess. EZMLM > > > didnt let me send any mails this > >> morning. Asked me to confirm > > > subscription and when I did, it said I > >> was already a member. > > > Now my mails are all coming out bad. Sorry > >> for troubling y'all > > > this bad. I hope this mail comes out right.> >> >> > Hi,> > We are > > > developing a product in a agile manner and the current > > > > > implementation has a data of size just about a 800 megs in dev.> > > > > The> >> > > memory allocated to solr on dev (Dual core Linux box) is 128-512.> > > > >>> > > > My config> > =========> >> >> > > <!-- autocommit pending docs if certain criteria are met> > > > > <autoCommit>> > <maxDocs>10000</maxDocs>> > <maxTime>1000</maxTime>> > > > >> >> > > </autoCommit>> > -->> >> > <filterCache> > class="solr.LRUCache"> > > > > size="512"> > initialSize="512"> > autowarmCount="256"/>> >> > > > > <queryResultCache> > class="solr.LRUCache"> > size="512"> > > > > initialSize="512"> > autowarmCount="256"/>> >> > <documentCache> > > > > class="solr.LRUCache"> > size="512"> > initialSize="512"> > > > > autowarmCount="0"/>> >> > > > > <enableLazyFieldLoading>true</enableLazyFieldLoading>> >> >> > My> > > Field>> > > > =======> >> > <fieldType name="autocomplete"> > > > class="solr.TextField">> <analyzer type="index">> > <tokenizer> > > class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/>> > <filter > > > class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory" />> > <filter > > > class="solr.PatternReplaceFilterFactory" > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])"> > > replacement="" replace="all" />> > <filter > > > class="solr.EdgeNGramFilterFactory" > > maxGramSize="100"> > > minGramSize="1" />> > </analyzer>> > <analyzer type="query">> > > > > <tokenizer class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/>> > <filter > > > class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory" />> > <filter > > > class="solr.PatternReplaceFilterFactory" > > pattern="([^a-z0-9])"> > > replacement="" replace="all" />> > <filter > > > class="solr.PatternReplaceFilterFactory" > > pattern="^(.{20})(.*)?"> > > replacement="$1" replace="all" />> > </analyzer>> > </fieldType>> >>> > > >>> > > > Problem> > ======> >> > I execute a query that returns 24 rows of> > > result. I pick 10 out of > > it. I have no problem when I execute > > > this.>> > > > But When I do sort it by a String field that is fetched from this > > > > >> > > > >> > > result. I get an OOM. I am able to execute several> > other queries > > > with no problem. Just having a sort asc clause added > > to the > > > query throws an OOM. Why is that.> > What should I have ideally > > > done. My config on QA is pretty similar > > to the dev box and > > > probably has more data than on dev.> > It didnt throw any OOM during > > > the integration test. The Autocomplete > > is a new field we added > > > recently.> >> > Another point is that the indexing is done with a > > > field of type string> > <field name="XXX" type="string" indexed="true"> >> > > stored="true" > > termVectors="true"/>> >> > and the autocomplete > > > field is a copy field.>> > > >> > The sorting is done based on string field.> >> > Please do > > > >> > lemme> > > know what mistake am I doing?> >> > Regards> > Sundar> >> > P.S: The > > > stack trace of the exception is> >> >> > Caused by:> > > org.apache.solr.client.solrj.SolrServerException: Error > > > > > executing> > > query> > at > >> > > org.apache.solr.client.solrj.request.QueryRequest.process(QueryReque> > > st> > > .j> > > ava:86)> > at > >> > > org.apache.solr.client.solrj.impl.BaseSolrServer.query(BaseSolrServer.> > > ja> > > va:101)> > at > >> > > com.apollo.sisaw.solr.service.AbstractSolrSearchService.makeSolrQuer> > > y( Ab stractSolrSearchService.java:193)> > ... 105 more> > Caused > > > by:> > > org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Java heap space > >> > > java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space> > at > > > > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$10.createValue(FieldCacheImpl.> > > ja> > > va:403)> > at> > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$Cache.get(FieldCacheImpl.java:> > > 72> > > )> > at > >> > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl.getStringIndex(FieldCacheImpl.> > > ja> > > va:352)> > at > >> > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldSortedHitQueue.comparatorString(FieldS> > > or> > > te> > > dHitQueue.java:416)> > at > >> > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldSortedHitQueue$1.createValue(FieldSort> > > ed> > > Hi> > > tQueue.java:207)> > at> > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldCacheImpl$Cache.get(FieldCacheImpl.java:> > > 72> > > )> > at > >> > > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldSortedHitQueue.getCachedComparator(Fie> > > ld> > > So> > > rtedHitQueue.java:168)> > at > >> > >> > org.apache.lucene.search.FieldSortedHitQueue.<init>(FieldSortedHitQueue.> > > java:56)> > at > >> > >> > org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.getDocListNC(SolrIndexSearcher.> > > java:907)> > at > >> > > org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.getDocListC(SolrIndexSearch> > > er> > > .j> > > ava:838)> > at > >> > > org.apache.solr.search.SolrIndexSearcher.search(SolrIndexSearcher.ja> > > va> > > :2> > > 69)> > at > >> > >> > org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.process(QueryComponent.> > > java:160)> > at > >> > > org.apache.solr.handler.component.SearchHandler.handleRequestBody(Se> > > ar> > > ch> > > Handler.java:156)> > at > >> > > org.apache.solr.handler.RequestHandlerBase.handleRequest(RequestHand> > > le> > > rB> > > ase.java:128)> > at> > > org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.execute(SolrCore.java:1025)> > at > > > > > org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.execute(SolrDispatchFilter.> > > ja> > > va:338)> > at > >> > > org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(SolrDispatchFilt> > > er> > > .j> > > ava:272)> > at > >> > > org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(App> > > li> > > ca> > > tionFilterChain.java:202)> > at > >> > > org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(Application> > > Fi> > > lt> > > erChain.java:173)> > at > >> > > org.jboss.web.tomcat.filters.ReplyHeaderFilter.doFilter(ReplyHeaderF> > > il> > > te> > > r.java:96)> > at > >> > > org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter(App> > > li> > > ca> > > tionFilterChain.java:202)> > at > >> > > org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter(Application> > > Fi> > > lt> > > erChain.java:173)> > at > >> > > org.apache.catalina.core.StandardWrapperValve.invoke(StandardWrapper> > > Va> > > lv> > > e.java:213)> > at > >> > > org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContextValve.invoke(StandardContext> > > Va> > > lv> > > e.java:178)> > at > >> > > org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.SecurityAssociationValve.invoke(Securi> > > ty> > > As> > > sociationValve.java:175)> > at > >> > > org.jboss.web.tomcat.security.JaccContextValve.invoke(JaccContextVal> > > ve> > > .j> > > ava:74)> > at > >> > > org.apache.catalina.core.StandardHostValve.invoke(StandardHostValve.> > > ja> > > va> > > :126)> > at > >> > > org.apache.catalina.valves.ErrorReportValve.invoke(ErrorReportValve.> > > ja> > > va> > > :105)> > at > >> > > org.jboss.web.tomcat.tc5.jca.CachedConnectionValve.invoke(CachedConn> > > ec> > > ti> > > onValve.java:156)> > at > >> > >> > org.apache.catalina.core.StandardEngineValve.invoke(StandardEngineValve.> > > java:107)> > at > >> > > org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteAdapter.service(CoyoteAdapter.ja> > > va> > > :1> > > 48)> > at> > > org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11Processor.process(Http11Processor.java:> > > 86> > > 9)> >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________> > > > > Wish to Marry Now? Click Here to Register FREE> > > >>>>>>>>> > > > http://www.shaadi.com/registration/user/index.php?ptnr=mhottag>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > > _________________________________________________________________>> > > >>>>>>>> Missed your favourite programme? Stop surfing TV channels > > > >>>>>>>> and> >> > > >>>>>>>> > start planning your weekend TV viewing with our > > > > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > > comprehensive TV Listing> >>>>>>>>> > > http://entertainment.in.msn.com/TV/TVListing.aspx> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> > > >>> >> > > >>>>> > > >> _________________________________________________________________> > > >> Wish to Marry Now? Join Shaadi.com FREE!> > > >> http://www.shaadi.com/registration/user/index.php?ptnr=mhottag> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/> > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain> > personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically > > stated.> > > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.> > > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in> > reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.> > > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.> > > Further communication will signify your consent to this.> > >> >> > _________________________________________________________________> > Missed your favourite programme? Stop surfing TV channels and start > > planning your weekend TV viewing with our comprehensive TV Listing > > http://entertainment.in.msn.com/TV/TVListing.aspx> >> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/> > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain > > personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically> stated.> > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.> > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in > > reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.> > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.> > Further communication will signify your consent to this.> >> >> 
_________________________________________________________________
Searching for the best deals on travel? Visit MSN Travel.
http://msn.coxandkings.co.in/cnk/cnk.do