In the past, search indices were usually very static: you built them once, called
optimize
at the end and shipped them off,
and didn't change them very often.
But these days it's just the opposite: most applications have very dynamic indices, constantly being updated with a stream of changes, and you never call
optimize
anymore.
Lucene's near-real-time search, especially with recent improvements including manager classes to handle the tricky complexities of sharing searchers across threads, offers very fast search turnaround on index changes.
But there is a serious yet often overlooked problem with this approach. To see it, you have to put yourself in the shoes of a user. Imagine Alice comes to your site, runs a search, and is looking through the search results. Not satisfied, after a few seconds she decides to refine that first search. Perhaps she drills down on one of the nice facets you presented, or maybe she clicks to the next page, or picks a different sort criteria (any follow-on action will do). So a new search request is sent back to your server, including the first search plus the requested change (drill down, next page, change sort field, etc.).
How do you handle this follow-on search request? Just pull the latest and greatest searcher from your
SearcherManager
or NRTManager
and search away, right?
Wrong!
If you do this, you risk a broken search experience for Alice, because the new searcher may be different from the original searcher used for Alice's first search request. The differences could be substantial, if you had just opened a new searcher after updating a bunch of documents. This means the results of Alice's follow-on search may have shifted: facet counts are now off, hits are sorted differently so some hits may be duplicated on the second page, or may be lost (if they moved from page 2 to page 1), etc. If you use the new (will be in Lucene 3.5.0)
searchAfter
API, for efficient paging, the risk is even greater!
Perversely, the frequent searcher reopening that you thought provides such a great user experience by making all search results so fresh, can in fact have just the opposite effect. Each reopen risks breaking all current searches in your application; the more active your site, the more searches you might break!
It's deadly to intentionally break a user's search experience: they will (correctly) conclude your search is buggy, eroding their trust, and then take their business to your competition.
It turns out, this is easy to fix! Instead of pulling the latest searcher for every incoming search request, you should try to pull the same searcher used for the initial search request in the session. This way all follow-on searches see exactly the same index.
Fortunately, there's a new class coming in Lucene 3.5.0, that simplifies this:
SearcherLifetimeManager
. The class is
agnostic to how you obtain the fresh searchers
(i.e., SearcherManager
, NRTManager
, or your
own custom source) used for an initial search.
Just like
Lucene's other
manager classes, SearcherLifetimeManager
is very
easy to use. Create the manager once, up front:
SearcherLifetimeManager mgr = new SearcherLifetimeManager();Then, when a search request arrives, if it's an initial (not follow-on) search, obtain the most current searcher in the usual way, but then record this searcher:
long token = mgr.record(searcher);The returned
token
uniquely identifies the specific
searcher; you must save it somewhere the user's search results, for
example by placing it in a hidden HTML form field.
Later, when the user performs a follow-on search request, make sure the original
token
is sent back to the server, and then
use it to obtain the same searcher:
// If possible, obtain same searcher version as last // search: IndexSearcher searcher = mgr.acquire(token); if (searcher != null) { // Searcher is still here try { // do searching... } finally { mgr.release(searcher); // Do not use searcher after this! searcher = null; } } else { // Searcher was pruned -- notify user session timed // out }As long as the original searcher is still available, the manager will return it to you; be sure to
release
that searcher
(ideally in a finally
clause).
It's possible searcher is no longer available: for example if Alice ran a new search, but then got hungry, went off to a long lunch, and finally returned then clicked "next page", likely the original searcher will have been pruned!
You should gracefully handle this case, for example by notifying Alice that the search had timed out and asking her to re-submit the original search (which will then get the latest and greatest searcher). Fortunately, you can reduce how often this happens, by controlling how aggressively you prune old searchers:
mgr.prune(new PruneByAge(600.0));This removes any searchers older than 10 minutes (you can also implement a custom pruning strategy). You should call it from a separate dedicated thread (not a searcher thread), ideally the same thread that's periodically indexing changes and opening new searchers.
Keeping many searchers around will necessarily tie up resources (open file descriptors, RAM, index files on disk that the
IndexWriter
would otherwise have deleted). However,
because the reopened searchers share sub-readers, the resource
consumption will generally be well contained, in proportion to how
many index changes occurred between each reopen. Just be sure to
use NRTCachingDirectory
, to ensure you don't bump up
against open file descriptor limits on your operating system (this
also gives a good speedup in reopen turnaround time).
Don't erode your users' trust by intentionally breaking their searches!
LUCENE-3486 has the details.
No comments:
Post a Comment