Adjust DWPT pool concurrency to the number of cores. #12216
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
After upgrading Elasticsearch to a recent Lucene snapshot, we observed a few indexing slowdowns when indexing with low numbers of cores. This appears to be due to the fact that we lost too much of the bias towards larger DWPTs in apache#12199. This change tries to add back more ordering by adjusting the concurrency of `DWPTPool` to the number of cores that are available on the local node.
dnhatn
approved these changes
Mar 30, 2023
| final Lock[] locks; | ||
| final ApproximatePriorityQueue<T>[] queues; | ||
|
|
||
| ConcurrentApproximatePriorityQueue() { | ||
| locks = new Lock[CONCURRENCY]; | ||
| concurrency = getConcurrency(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we have another constructor accepting the concurrency level, and the default constructor using the default computed value to avoid having CONCURRENCY_OVERRIDE?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Obviously! Thanks Nhat, I'm a bit embarassed of not having thought of it myself. :)
jpountz
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2023
After upgrading Elasticsearch to a recent Lucene snapshot, we observed a few indexing slowdowns when indexing with low numbers of cores. This appears to be due to the fact that we lost too much of the bias towards larger DWPTs in #12199. This change tries to add back more ordering by adjusting the concurrency of `DWPTPool` to the number of cores that are available on the local node.
waziqi89
pushed a commit
to waziqi89/lucene
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 3, 2023
After upgrading Elasticsearch to a recent Lucene snapshot, we observed a few indexing slowdowns when indexing with low numbers of cores. This appears to be due to the fact that we lost too much of the bias towards larger DWPTs in apache#12199. This change tries to add back more ordering by adjusting the concurrency of `DWPTPool` to the number of cores that are available on the local node.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After upgrading Elasticsearch to a recent Lucene snapshot, we observed a few indexing slowdowns when indexing with low numbers of cores. This appears to be due to the fact that we lost too much of the bias towards larger DWPTs in #12199. This change tries to add back more ordering by adjusting the concurrency of
DWPTPoolto the number of cores that are available on the local node.