Yokozuna inconsistent search results

Oleksiy Krivoshey oleksiyk at gmail.com
Thu Mar 24 10:55:37 EDT 2016

Hi Magnus,

Thanks! I guess I will go with index deletion because I've already tried
expiring the trees before.

Do I need to delete AAE data somehow or removing the index is enough?

On 24 March 2016 at 13:28, Magnus Kessler <mkessler at basho.com> wrote:

> Hi Oleksiy,
> As a first step, I suggest to simply expire the Yokozuna AAE trees again
> if the output of `riak-admin search aae-status` still suggests that no
> recent exchanges have taken place. To do this, run `riak attach` on one
> node and then
> riak_core_util:rpc_every_member_ann(yz_entropy_mgr, expire_trees, [], 5000).
> Exit from the riak console with `Ctrl+G q`.
> Depending on your settings and amount of data the full index should be
> rebuilt within the next 2.5 days (for a cluster with ring size 128 and
> default settings). You can monitor the progress with `riak-admin search
> aae-status` and also in the logs, which should have messages along the
> lines of
> 2016-03-24 10:28:25.372 [info]
> <0.4647.6477>@yz_exchange_fsm:key_exchange:179 Repaired 83055 keys during
> active anti-entropy exchange of partition
> 1210306043414653979137426502093171875652569137152 for preflist
> {1164634117248063262943561351070788031288321245184,3}
> Re-indexing can put additional strain on the cluster and may cause
> elevated latency on a cluster already under heavy load. Please monitor the
> response times while the cluster is re-indexing data.
> If the cluster load allows it, you can force more rapid re-indexing by
> changing a few parameters. Again at the `riak attach` console, run
> riak_core_util:rpc_every_member_ann(application, set_env, [yokozuna, anti_entropy_build_limit, {4, 60000}], 5000).
> riak_core_util:rpc_every_member_ann(application, set_env, [yokozuna, anti_entropy_concurrency, 5], 5000).
> This will allow up to 4 trees per node to be built/exchanged per hour,
> with up to 5 concurrent exchanges throughout the cluster. To return back to
> the default settings, use
> riak_core_util:rpc_every_member_ann(application, set_env, [yokozuna, anti_entropy_build_limit, {1, 360000}], 5000).
> riak_core_util:rpc_every_member_ann(application, set_env, [yokozuna, anti_entropy_concurrency, 2], 5000).
> If the cluster still doesn't make any progress with automatically
> re-indexing data, the next steps are pretty much what you already
> suggested, to drop the existing index and re-index from scratch. I'm
> assuming that losing the indexes temporarily is acceptable to you at this
> point.
> Using any client API that supports RpbYokozunaIndexDeleteReq, you can
> drop the index from all Solr instances, losing any data stored there
> immediately. Next, you'll have to re-create the index. I have tried this
> with the python API, where I deleted the index and re-created it with the
> same already uploaded schema:
> from riak import RiakClient
> c = RiakClient()
> c.delete_search_index('my_index')
> c.create_search_index('my_index', 'my_schema')
> Note that simply deleting the index does not remove it's existing
> association with any bucket or bucket type. Any PUT operations on these
> buckets will lead to indexing failures being logged until the index has
> been recreated. However, this also means that no separate operation in
> `riak-admin` is required to associate the newly recreated index with the
> buckets again.
> After recreating the index expire the trees as explained previously.
> Let us know if this solves your issue.
> Kind Regards,
> Magnus
> On 24 March 2016 at 08:44, Oleksiy Krivoshey <oleksiyk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is how things are looking after two weeks:
>> - there are no solr indexing issues for a long period (2 weeks)
>> - there are no yokozuna errors at all for 2 weeks
>> - there is an index with all empty schema, just _yz_* fields, objects
>> stored in a bucket(s) are binary and so are not analysed by yokozuna
>> - same yokozuna query repeated gives different number for num_found,
>> typically the difference between real number of keys in a bucket and
>> num_found is about 25%
>> - number of keys repaired by AAE (according to logs) is about 1-2 per few
>> hours (number of keys "missing" in index is close to 1,000,000)
>> Should I now try to delete the index and yokozuna AAE data and wait
>> another 2 weeks? If yes - how should I delete the index and AAE data?
>> Will RpbYokozunaIndexDeleteReq be enough?
> --
> Magnus Kessler
> Client Services Engineer
> Basho Technologies Limited
> Registered Office - 8 Lincoln’s Inn Fields London WC2A 3BP Reg 07970431
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.basho.com/pipermail/riak-users_lists.basho.com/attachments/20160324/22122d40/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the riak-users mailing list