Always use leader for searching queries

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Always use leader for searching queries

Novin Novin
Hi guys,

I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is there any
way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.

Thanks in advance.
Navin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Always use leader for searching queries

Erick Erickson
This seems like an XY problem. You're asking how to do X
because you think it will solve problem Y without telling
us what Y is.

I say this because on the surface this seems to defeat the
purpose behind SolrCloud. Why would you want to only make
use of one piece of hardware? That will limit your throughput,
so why bother to have replicas in the first place?

Or is this some kind of diagnostic you're trying to implement?

Best,
Erick

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is there any
> way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Navin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Always use leader for searching queries

Novin Novin
Hi Erick,

You are right, it is XY Problem.

Allow me to explain best I can, I have two replica of one collection called
"Main". When I was using search feature in my application I get two
different numFound count. So I start digging after spending 2 3 hours I
found the one replica has numFound count higher than other (higher count
was not leader). I am not sure how It got end up like that. This count
difference affects paging on my application side not solr side.

Extra info might be useful to know
Same query not a single letter difference.
auto soft commit 20000
soft commit 60000
indexing data every minute.

Let me know if you need to know anything else. Any help would highly
appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Navin



On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 15:14 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This seems like an XY problem. You're asking how to do X
> because you think it will solve problem Y without telling
> us what Y is.
>
> I say this because on the surface this seems to defeat the
> purpose behind SolrCloud. Why would you want to only make
> use of one piece of hardware? That will limit your throughput,
> so why bother to have replicas in the first place?
>
> Or is this some kind of diagnostic you're trying to implement?
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is there
> any
> > way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> > Navin
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Always use leader for searching queries

Erick Erickson
First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
NOW-autocommit time.

So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.

Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
_core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
data from that core.

When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
perfect.

Another option if you're totally and completely sure that your commits
happen _only_ from your indexing program is to fire the commit at the
end of the run from your SolrJ program.

Let us know,
Erick

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Erick,
>
> You are right, it is XY Problem.
>
> Allow me to explain best I can, I have two replica of one collection called
> "Main". When I was using search feature in my application I get two
> different numFound count. So I start digging after spending 2 3 hours I
> found the one replica has numFound count higher than other (higher count
> was not leader). I am not sure how It got end up like that. This count
> difference affects paging on my application side not solr side.
>
> Extra info might be useful to know
> Same query not a single letter difference.
> auto soft commit 20000
> soft commit 60000
> indexing data every minute.
>
> Let me know if you need to know anything else. Any help would highly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Navin
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 15:14 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> This seems like an XY problem. You're asking how to do X
>> because you think it will solve problem Y without telling
>> us what Y is.
>>
>> I say this because on the surface this seems to defeat the
>> purpose behind SolrCloud. Why would you want to only make
>> use of one piece of hardware? That will limit your throughput,
>> so why bother to have replicas in the first place?
>>
>> Or is this some kind of diagnostic you're trying to implement?
>>
>> Best,
>> Erick
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi guys,
>> >
>> > I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is there
>> any
>> > way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance.
>> > Navin
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Always use leader for searching queries

Novin Novin
Hi Erick,

Thanks for your reply.

[ First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
NOW-autocommit time.]

I realized that, to stop it. I have actually turned off auto soft commit
for a time being but nothing changed. Non leader replica still had extra
documents.

[ So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.]

When data was indexing at that time I was checking how the counts are in
both replica. What I found leader replica has 3 doc less than other replica
always. I don't think so they were of by NOW-soft_commit_time, CloudSolrClient
add some thing like this "_stateVer_=main:114" in query which I assume is
for results to be consistent between both replica search.

[Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
_core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
data from that core.]
I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I did
anyway count was different.

[When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
perfect.]

We receive data every minute, so whenever we have new data we send it to
Solr cloud using queue. You said don't rely on auto config. Do you mean I
should turn off autocommit and use commitWithin using solrj or leave
autoCommit as it is and also use commitWithin from solrj client.

I apologize If I am not clear, thanks for your help again.

Thanks in advance,
Navin





On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 18:05 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
> NOW-autocommit time.
>
> So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.
>
> Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
> data from that core.
>
> When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
> perfect.
>
> Another option if you're totally and completely sure that your commits
> happen _only_ from your indexing program is to fire the commit at the
> end of the run from your SolrJ program.
>
> Let us know,
> Erick
>
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Erick,
> >
> > You are right, it is XY Problem.
> >
> > Allow me to explain best I can, I have two replica of one collection
> called
> > "Main". When I was using search feature in my application I get two
> > different numFound count. So I start digging after spending 2 3 hours I
> > found the one replica has numFound count higher than other (higher count
> > was not leader). I am not sure how It got end up like that. This count
> > difference affects paging on my application side not solr side.
> >
> > Extra info might be useful to know
> > Same query not a single letter difference.
> > auto soft commit 20000
> > soft commit 60000
> > indexing data every minute.
> >
> > Let me know if you need to know anything else. Any help would highly
> > appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Navin
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 15:14 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> This seems like an XY problem. You're asking how to do X
> >> because you think it will solve problem Y without telling
> >> us what Y is.
> >>
> >> I say this because on the surface this seems to defeat the
> >> purpose behind SolrCloud. Why would you want to only make
> >> use of one piece of hardware? That will limit your throughput,
> >> so why bother to have replicas in the first place?
> >>
> >> Or is this some kind of diagnostic you're trying to implement?
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Erick
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> > Hi guys,
> >> >
> >> > I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is there
> >> any
> >> > way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks in advance.
> >> > Navin
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Always use leader for searching queries

Erick Erickson
[I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I did
anyway count was different.]

This isn't what I meant. I meant to query each replica directly
_within_ the same shard. Your problem statement is that the leader and
replicas (I use "followers") have different document counts. How are
you verifying this? Through the admin UI? Using &distrib=false is
useful when you want to query each core directly (and you have to use
the core name) in some automated fashion.

[I have actually turned off auto soft commit for a time being but
nothing changed]

OK, I'm assuming then that you issue a manual commit sometime, right?
Here's what I'd do:
1> turn off indexing
2> issue a commit (soft or hard-with-opensearcher-true)
3> now look at your doc counts on each replica.

If the counts are different then something's not right, Solr tries
very hard to not lose data, it's concerning if the leader and replicas
have different counts.

Best,
Erick

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Erick,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> [ First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
> NOW-autocommit time.]
>
> I realized that, to stop it. I have actually turned off auto soft commit
> for a time being but nothing changed. Non leader replica still had extra
> documents.
>
> [ So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.]
>
> When data was indexing at that time I was checking how the counts are in
> both replica. What I found leader replica has 3 doc less than other replica
> always. I don't think so they were of by NOW-soft_commit_time, CloudSolrClient
> add some thing like this "_stateVer_=main:114" in query which I assume is
> for results to be consistent between both replica search.
>
> [Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
> data from that core.]
> I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I did
> anyway count was different.
>
> [When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
> perfect.]
>
> We receive data every minute, so whenever we have new data we send it to
> Solr cloud using queue. You said don't rely on auto config. Do you mean I
> should turn off autocommit and use commitWithin using solrj or leave
> autoCommit as it is and also use commitWithin from solrj client.
>
> I apologize If I am not clear, thanks for your help again.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Navin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 18:05 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
>> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
>> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
>> NOW-autocommit time.
>>
>> So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
>> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
>> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
>> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
>> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.
>>
>> Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
>> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
>> data from that core.
>>
>> When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
>> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
>> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
>> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
>> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
>> perfect.
>>
>> Another option if you're totally and completely sure that your commits
>> happen _only_ from your indexing program is to fire the commit at the
>> end of the run from your SolrJ program.
>>
>> Let us know,
>> Erick
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi Erick,
>> >
>> > You are right, it is XY Problem.
>> >
>> > Allow me to explain best I can, I have two replica of one collection
>> called
>> > "Main". When I was using search feature in my application I get two
>> > different numFound count. So I start digging after spending 2 3 hours I
>> > found the one replica has numFound count higher than other (higher count
>> > was not leader). I am not sure how It got end up like that. This count
>> > difference affects paging on my application side not solr side.
>> >
>> > Extra info might be useful to know
>> > Same query not a single letter difference.
>> > auto soft commit 20000
>> > soft commit 60000
>> > indexing data every minute.
>> >
>> > Let me know if you need to know anything else. Any help would highly
>> > appreciated.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance,
>> > Navin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 15:14 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This seems like an XY problem. You're asking how to do X
>> >> because you think it will solve problem Y without telling
>> >> us what Y is.
>> >>
>> >> I say this because on the surface this seems to defeat the
>> >> purpose behind SolrCloud. Why would you want to only make
>> >> use of one piece of hardware? That will limit your throughput,
>> >> so why bother to have replicas in the first place?
>> >>
>> >> Or is this some kind of diagnostic you're trying to implement?
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Erick
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> > Hi guys,
>> >> >
>> >> > I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is there
>> >> any
>> >> > way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks in advance.
>> >> > Navin
>> >>
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Always use leader for searching queries

Walter Underwood
If you have a field for the indexed datetime, you can use a filter query to get rid of recent updates that might be in transit. I’d use double the autocommit time, to leave time for the followers to index.

If the autocommit interval is one minute:

fq=indexed_datetime:[* TO NOW-2MIN]

wunder
Walter Underwood
[hidden email]
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)


> On Jan 3, 2018, at 8:58 AM, Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> [I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I did
> anyway count was different.]
>
> This isn't what I meant. I meant to query each replica directly
> _within_ the same shard. Your problem statement is that the leader and
> replicas (I use "followers") have different document counts. How are
> you verifying this? Through the admin UI? Using &distrib=false is
> useful when you want to query each core directly (and you have to use
> the core name) in some automated fashion.
>
> [I have actually turned off auto soft commit for a time being but
> nothing changed]
>
> OK, I'm assuming then that you issue a manual commit sometime, right?
> Here's what I'd do:
> 1> turn off indexing
> 2> issue a commit (soft or hard-with-opensearcher-true)
> 3> now look at your doc counts on each replica.
>
> If the counts are different then something's not right, Solr tries
> very hard to not lose data, it's concerning if the leader and replicas
> have different counts.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi Erick,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> [ First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
>> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
>> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
>> NOW-autocommit time.]
>>
>> I realized that, to stop it. I have actually turned off auto soft commit
>> for a time being but nothing changed. Non leader replica still had extra
>> documents.
>>
>> [ So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
>> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
>> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
>> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
>> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.]
>>
>> When data was indexing at that time I was checking how the counts are in
>> both replica. What I found leader replica has 3 doc less than other replica
>> always. I don't think so they were of by NOW-soft_commit_time, CloudSolrClient
>> add some thing like this "_stateVer_=main:114" in query which I assume is
>> for results to be consistent between both replica search.
>>
>> [Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
>> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
>> data from that core.]
>> I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I did
>> anyway count was different.
>>
>> [When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
>> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
>> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
>> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
>> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
>> perfect.]
>>
>> We receive data every minute, so whenever we have new data we send it to
>> Solr cloud using queue. You said don't rely on auto config. Do you mean I
>> should turn off autocommit and use commitWithin using solrj or leave
>> autoCommit as it is and also use commitWithin from solrj client.
>>
>> I apologize If I am not clear, thanks for your help again.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Navin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 18:05 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
>>> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
>>> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
>>> NOW-autocommit time.
>>>
>>> So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
>>> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
>>> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
>>> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
>>> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.
>>>
>>> Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
>>> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
>>> data from that core.
>>>
>>> When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
>>> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
>>> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
>>> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
>>> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
>>> perfect.
>>>
>>> Another option if you're totally and completely sure that your commits
>>> happen _only_ from your indexing program is to fire the commit at the
>>> end of the run from your SolrJ program.
>>>
>>> Let us know,
>>> Erick
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Erick,
>>>>
>>>> You are right, it is XY Problem.
>>>>
>>>> Allow me to explain best I can, I have two replica of one collection
>>> called
>>>> "Main". When I was using search feature in my application I get two
>>>> different numFound count. So I start digging after spending 2 3 hours I
>>>> found the one replica has numFound count higher than other (higher count
>>>> was not leader). I am not sure how It got end up like that. This count
>>>> difference affects paging on my application side not solr side.
>>>>
>>>> Extra info might be useful to know
>>>> Same query not a single letter difference.
>>>> auto soft commit 20000
>>>> soft commit 60000
>>>> indexing data every minute.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you need to know anything else. Any help would highly
>>>> appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Navin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 15:14 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This seems like an XY problem. You're asking how to do X
>>>>> because you think it will solve problem Y without telling
>>>>> us what Y is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I say this because on the surface this seems to defeat the
>>>>> purpose behind SolrCloud. Why would you want to only make
>>>>> use of one piece of hardware? That will limit your throughput,
>>>>> so why bother to have replicas in the first place?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is this some kind of diagnostic you're trying to implement?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Erick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is there
>>>>> any
>>>>>> way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>>> Navin
>>>>>
>>>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Always use leader for searching queries

Novin Novin
Hi Erick,

Apology for delay.

[This isn't what I meant. I meant to query each replica directly
_within_ the same shard. Your problem statement is that the leader and
replicas (I use "followers") have different document counts. How are
you verifying this? Through the admin UI? Using &distrib=false is
useful when you want to query each core directly (and you have to use
the core name) in some automated fashion.]

I might be wrong here because now I can't produce it with distrib=false

I also did as you said
[OK, I'm assuming then that you issue a manual commit sometime, right?
Here's what I'd do:
1> turn off indexing
2> issue a commit (soft or hard-with-opensearcher-true)
3> now look at your doc counts on each replica.]

Everything is seems ok now, I must have doing something wrong before.

Thanks for all yours and walter's  help
Best,
Navin


On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 at 17:09 Walter Underwood <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If you have a field for the indexed datetime, you can use a filter query
> to get rid of recent updates that might be in transit. I’d use double the
> autocommit time, to leave time for the followers to index.
>
> If the autocommit interval is one minute:
>
> fq=indexed_datetime:[* TO NOW-2MIN]
>
> wunder
> Walter Underwood
> [hidden email]
> http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 8:58 AM, Erick Erickson <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > [I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I did
> > anyway count was different.]
> >
> > This isn't what I meant. I meant to query each replica directly
> > _within_ the same shard. Your problem statement is that the leader and
> > replicas (I use "followers") have different document counts. How are
> > you verifying this? Through the admin UI? Using &distrib=false is
> > useful when you want to query each core directly (and you have to use
> > the core name) in some automated fashion.
> >
> > [I have actually turned off auto soft commit for a time being but
> > nothing changed]
> >
> > OK, I'm assuming then that you issue a manual commit sometime, right?
> > Here's what I'd do:
> > 1> turn off indexing
> > 2> issue a commit (soft or hard-with-opensearcher-true)
> > 3> now look at your doc counts on each replica.
> >
> > If the counts are different then something's not right, Solr tries
> > very hard to not lose data, it's concerning if the leader and replicas
> > have different counts.
> >
> > Best,
> > Erick
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> Hi Erick,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your reply.
> >>
> >> [ First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
> >> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
> >> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
> >> NOW-autocommit time.]
> >>
> >> I realized that, to stop it. I have actually turned off auto soft commit
> >> for a time being but nothing changed. Non leader replica still had extra
> >> documents.
> >>
> >> [ So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
> >> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
> >> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
> >> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
> >> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.]
> >>
> >> When data was indexing at that time I was checking how the counts are in
> >> both replica. What I found leader replica has 3 doc less than other
> replica
> >> always. I don't think so they were of by NOW-soft_commit_time,
> CloudSolrClient
> >> add some thing like this "_stateVer_=main:114" in query which I assume
> is
> >> for results to be consistent between both replica search.
> >>
> >> [Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
> >> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
> >> data from that core.]
> >> I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I did
> >> anyway count was different.
> >>
> >> [When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
> >> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
> >> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
> >> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
> >> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
> >> perfect.]
> >>
> >> We receive data every minute, so whenever we have new data we send it to
> >> Solr cloud using queue. You said don't rely on auto config. Do you mean
> I
> >> should turn off autocommit and use commitWithin using solrj or leave
> >> autoCommit as it is and also use commitWithin from solrj client.
> >>
> >> I apologize If I am not clear, thanks for your help again.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> Navin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 18:05 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
> >>> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
> >>> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
> >>> NOW-autocommit time.
> >>>
> >>> So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
> >>> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
> >>> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
> >>> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
> >>> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.
> >>>
> >>> Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
> >>> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
> >>> data from that core.
> >>>
> >>> When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
> >>> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
> >>> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
> >>> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
> >>> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
> >>> perfect.
> >>>
> >>> Another option if you're totally and completely sure that your commits
> >>> happen _only_ from your indexing program is to fire the commit at the
> >>> end of the run from your SolrJ program.
> >>>
> >>> Let us know,
> >>> Erick
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Erick,
> >>>>
> >>>> You are right, it is XY Problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Allow me to explain best I can, I have two replica of one collection
> >>> called
> >>>> "Main". When I was using search feature in my application I get two
> >>>> different numFound count. So I start digging after spending 2 3 hours
> I
> >>>> found the one replica has numFound count higher than other (higher
> count
> >>>> was not leader). I am not sure how It got end up like that. This count
> >>>> difference affects paging on my application side not solr side.
> >>>>
> >>>> Extra info might be useful to know
> >>>> Same query not a single letter difference.
> >>>> auto soft commit 20000
> >>>> soft commit 60000
> >>>> indexing data every minute.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let me know if you need to know anything else. Any help would highly
> >>>> appreciated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks in advance,
> >>>> Navin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 15:14 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> This seems like an XY problem. You're asking how to do X
> >>>>> because you think it will solve problem Y without telling
> >>>>> us what Y is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I say this because on the surface this seems to defeat the
> >>>>> purpose behind SolrCloud. Why would you want to only make
> >>>>> use of one piece of hardware? That will limit your throughput,
> >>>>> so why bother to have replicas in the first place?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or is this some kind of diagnostic you're trying to implement?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> Erick
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is
> there
> >>>>> any
> >>>>>> way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks in advance.
> >>>>>> Navin
> >>>>>
> >>>
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Always use leader for searching queries

Erick Erickson
One thing to be aware of is that the commit points on the replicas in a
replica may (will) fire at different times. So when you're comparing the
number of docs on the replicas in a shard you have to compare before the
last commit interval. So say you have a soft commit of 1 minute. When
comparing the docs on each shard you need to restrict the query to things
older than 1 minute or stop indexing and wait for 1 minute (i.e. until
after the autocommit fires).

Glad things worked out!
Erick

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Erick,
>
> Apology for delay.
>
> [This isn't what I meant. I meant to query each replica directly
> _within_ the same shard. Your problem statement is that the leader and
> replicas (I use "followers") have different document counts. How are
> you verifying this? Through the admin UI? Using &distrib=false is
> useful when you want to query each core directly (and you have to use
> the core name) in some automated fashion.]
>
> I might be wrong here because now I can't produce it with distrib=false
>
> I also did as you said
> [OK, I'm assuming then that you issue a manual commit sometime, right?
> Here's what I'd do:
> 1> turn off indexing
> 2> issue a commit (soft or hard-with-opensearcher-true)
> 3> now look at your doc counts on each replica.]
>
> Everything is seems ok now, I must have doing something wrong before.
>
> Thanks for all yours and walter's  help
> Best,
> Navin
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 at 17:09 Walter Underwood <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > If you have a field for the indexed datetime, you can use a filter query
> > to get rid of recent updates that might be in transit. I’d use double the
> > autocommit time, to leave time for the followers to index.
> >
> > If the autocommit interval is one minute:
> >
> > fq=indexed_datetime:[* TO NOW-2MIN]
> >
> > wunder
> > Walter Underwood
> > [hidden email]
> > http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 8:58 AM, Erick Erickson <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > [I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I did
> > > anyway count was different.]
> > >
> > > This isn't what I meant. I meant to query each replica directly
> > > _within_ the same shard. Your problem statement is that the leader and
> > > replicas (I use "followers") have different document counts. How are
> > > you verifying this? Through the admin UI? Using &distrib=false is
> > > useful when you want to query each core directly (and you have to use
> > > the core name) in some automated fashion.
> > >
> > > [I have actually turned off auto soft commit for a time being but
> > > nothing changed]
> > >
> > > OK, I'm assuming then that you issue a manual commit sometime, right?
> > > Here's what I'd do:
> > > 1> turn off indexing
> > > 2> issue a commit (soft or hard-with-opensearcher-true)
> > > 3> now look at your doc counts on each replica.
> > >
> > > If the counts are different then something's not right, Solr tries
> > > very hard to not lose data, it's concerning if the leader and replicas
> > > have different counts.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Erick
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >> Hi Erick,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your reply.
> > >>
> > >> [ First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
> > >> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
> > >> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this case
> > >> NOW-autocommit time.]
> > >>
> > >> I realized that, to stop it. I have actually turned off auto soft
> commit
> > >> for a time being but nothing changed. Non leader replica still had
> extra
> > >> documents.
> > >>
> > >> [ So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
> > >> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
> > >> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
> > >> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
> > >> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.]
> > >>
> > >> When data was indexing at that time I was checking how the counts are
> in
> > >> both replica. What I found leader replica has 3 doc less than other
> > replica
> > >> always. I don't think so they were of by NOW-soft_commit_time,
> > CloudSolrClient
> > >> add some thing like this "_stateVer_=main:114" in query which I assume
> > is
> > >> for results to be consistent between both replica search.
> > >>
> > >> [Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
> > >> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
> > >> data from that core.]
> > >> I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I did
> > >> anyway count was different.
> > >>
> > >> [When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
> > >> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
> > >> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
> > >> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
> > >> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
> > >> perfect.]
> > >>
> > >> We receive data every minute, so whenever we have new data we send it
> to
> > >> Solr cloud using queue. You said don't rely on auto config. Do you
> mean
> > I
> > >> should turn off autocommit and use commitWithin using solrj or leave
> > >> autoCommit as it is and also use commitWithin from solrj client.
> > >>
> > >> I apologize If I am not clear, thanks for your help again.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks in advance,
> > >> Navin
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 18:05 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
> > >>> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
> > >>> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this
> case
> > >>> NOW-autocommit time.
> > >>>
> > >>> So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
> > >>> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
> > >>> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
> > >>> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp, you
> > >>> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like below.
> > >>>
> > >>> Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a specific
> > >>> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
> > >>> data from that core.
> > >>>
> > >>> When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index for
> > >>> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
> > >>> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
> > >>> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
> > >>> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
> > >>> perfect.
> > >>>
> > >>> Another option if you're totally and completely sure that your
> commits
> > >>> happen _only_ from your indexing program is to fire the commit at the
> > >>> end of the run from your SolrJ program.
> > >>>
> > >>> Let us know,
> > >>> Erick
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>> Hi Erick,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You are right, it is XY Problem.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Allow me to explain best I can, I have two replica of one collection
> > >>> called
> > >>>> "Main". When I was using search feature in my application I get two
> > >>>> different numFound count. So I start digging after spending 2 3
> hours
> > I
> > >>>> found the one replica has numFound count higher than other (higher
> > count
> > >>>> was not leader). I am not sure how It got end up like that. This
> count
> > >>>> difference affects paging on my application side not solr side.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Extra info might be useful to know
> > >>>> Same query not a single letter difference.
> > >>>> auto soft commit 20000
> > >>>> soft commit 60000
> > >>>> indexing data every minute.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Let me know if you need to know anything else. Any help would highly
> > >>>> appreciated.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks in advance,
> > >>>> Navin
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 15:14 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]
> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> This seems like an XY problem. You're asking how to do X
> > >>>>> because you think it will solve problem Y without telling
> > >>>>> us what Y is.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I say this because on the surface this seems to defeat the
> > >>>>> purpose behind SolrCloud. Why would you want to only make
> > >>>>> use of one piece of hardware? That will limit your throughput,
> > >>>>> so why bother to have replicas in the first place?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Or is this some kind of diagnostic you're trying to implement?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best,
> > >>>>> Erick
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>> Hi guys,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is
> > there
> > >>>>> any
> > >>>>>> way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks in advance.
> > >>>>>> Navin
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Always use leader for searching queries

Novin Novin
Thank you very much for all your help.

On Tue 9 Jan 2018, 16:32 Erick Erickson, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One thing to be aware of is that the commit points on the replicas in a
> replica may (will) fire at different times. So when you're comparing the
> number of docs on the replicas in a shard you have to compare before the
> last commit interval. So say you have a soft commit of 1 minute. When
> comparing the docs on each shard you need to restrict the query to things
> older than 1 minute or stop indexing and wait for 1 minute (i.e. until
> after the autocommit fires).
>
> Glad things worked out!
> Erick
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Erick,
> >
> > Apology for delay.
> >
> > [This isn't what I meant. I meant to query each replica directly
> > _within_ the same shard. Your problem statement is that the leader and
> > replicas (I use "followers") have different document counts. How are
> > you verifying this? Through the admin UI? Using &distrib=false is
> > useful when you want to query each core directly (and you have to use
> > the core name) in some automated fashion.]
> >
> > I might be wrong here because now I can't produce it with distrib=false
> >
> > I also did as you said
> > [OK, I'm assuming then that you issue a manual commit sometime, right?
> > Here's what I'd do:
> > 1> turn off indexing
> > 2> issue a commit (soft or hard-with-opensearcher-true)
> > 3> now look at your doc counts on each replica.]
> >
> > Everything is seems ok now, I must have doing something wrong before.
> >
> > Thanks for all yours and walter's  help
> > Best,
> > Navin
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 at 17:09 Walter Underwood <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If you have a field for the indexed datetime, you can use a filter
> query
> > > to get rid of recent updates that might be in transit. I’d use double
> the
> > > autocommit time, to leave time for the followers to index.
> > >
> > > If the autocommit interval is one minute:
> > >
> > > fq=indexed_datetime:[* TO NOW-2MIN]
> > >
> > > wunder
> > > Walter Underwood
> > > [hidden email]
> > > http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jan 3, 2018, at 8:58 AM, Erick Erickson <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I
> did
> > > > anyway count was different.]
> > > >
> > > > This isn't what I meant. I meant to query each replica directly
> > > > _within_ the same shard. Your problem statement is that the leader
> and
> > > > replicas (I use "followers") have different document counts. How are
> > > > you verifying this? Through the admin UI? Using &distrib=false is
> > > > useful when you want to query each core directly (and you have to use
> > > > the core name) in some automated fashion.
> > > >
> > > > [I have actually turned off auto soft commit for a time being but
> > > > nothing changed]
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'm assuming then that you issue a manual commit sometime, right?
> > > > Here's what I'd do:
> > > > 1> turn off indexing
> > > > 2> issue a commit (soft or hard-with-opensearcher-true)
> > > > 3> now look at your doc counts on each replica.
> > > >
> > > > If the counts are different then something's not right, Solr tries
> > > > very hard to not lose data, it's concerning if the leader and
> replicas
> > > > have different counts.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Erick
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >> Hi Erick,
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks for your reply.
> > > >>
> > > >> [ First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
> > > >> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at the
> > > >> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this
> case
> > > >> NOW-autocommit time.]
> > > >>
> > > >> I realized that, to stop it. I have actually turned off auto soft
> > commit
> > > >> for a time being but nothing changed. Non leader replica still had
> > extra
> > > >> documents.
> > > >>
> > > >> [ So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
> > > >> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
> > > >> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past autowarming.
> > > >> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp,
> you
> > > >> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like
> below.]
> > > >>
> > > >> When data was indexing at that time I was checking how the counts
> are
> > in
> > > >> both replica. What I found leader replica has 3 doc less than other
> > > replica
> > > >> always. I don't think so they were of by NOW-soft_commit_time,
> > > CloudSolrClient
> > > >> add some thing like this "_stateVer_=main:114" in query which I
> assume
> > > is
> > > >> for results to be consistent between both replica search.
> > > >>
> > > >> [Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a
> specific
> > > >> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only return
> > > >> data from that core.]
> > > >> I probably not need to do this because I have only one shard but I
> did
> > > >> anyway count was different.
> > > >>
> > > >> [When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index
> for
> > > >> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
> > > >> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
> > > >> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
> > > >> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still not
> > > >> perfect.]
> > > >>
> > > >> We receive data every minute, so whenever we have new data we send
> it
> > to
> > > >> Solr cloud using queue. You said don't rely on auto config. Do you
> > mean
> > > I
> > > >> should turn off autocommit and use commitWithin using solrj or leave
> > > >> autoCommit as it is and also use commitWithin from solrj client.
> > > >>
> > > >> I apologize If I am not clear, thanks for your help again.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks in advance,
> > > >> Navin
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 18:05 Erick Erickson <[hidden email]
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> First of all, replicas can be off in terms of counts for the soft
> > > >>> commit interval. The commits don't all happen on the replicas at
> the
> > > >>> same wall-clock time. Solr promises eventual consistency, in this
> > case
> > > >>> NOW-autocommit time.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So my first question is whether the replicas in the shard are
> > > >>> inconsistent as of, say, NOW-your_soft_commit_time. I'd add a fudge
> > > >>> factor of 10 seconds earlier just to be sure I was past
> autowarming.
> > > >>> This does require that there be a time stamp. Absent a timestamp,
> you
> > > >>> could suspend indexing for a few minutes and run the test like
> below.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Adding &distrib=false to your command and directing it at a
> specific
> > > >>> _core_ (something like collection1_shard1_replica1) will only
> return
> > > >>> data from that core.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> When you say you index every minute, I'm guessing you only index
> for
> > > >>> part of that minute, is that true? In that case you might get more
> > > >>> consistency if, instead of relying totally on your autoconfig
> > > >>> settings, specify commitWithin on your update command. That should
> > > >>> force the commits to happen more closely in-sync, although still
> not
> > > >>> perfect.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Another option if you're totally and completely sure that your
> > commits
> > > >>> happen _only_ from your indexing program is to fire the commit at
> the
> > > >>> end of the run from your SolrJ program.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Let us know,
> > > >>> Erick
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>> Hi Erick,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> You are right, it is XY Problem.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Allow me to explain best I can, I have two replica of one
> collection
> > > >>> called
> > > >>>> "Main". When I was using search feature in my application I get
> two
> > > >>>> different numFound count. So I start digging after spending 2 3
> > hours
> > > I
> > > >>>> found the one replica has numFound count higher than other (higher
> > > count
> > > >>>> was not leader). I am not sure how It got end up like that. This
> > count
> > > >>>> difference affects paging on my application side not solr side.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Extra info might be useful to know
> > > >>>> Same query not a single letter difference.
> > > >>>> auto soft commit 20000
> > > >>>> soft commit 60000
> > > >>>> indexing data every minute.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Let me know if you need to know anything else. Any help would
> highly
> > > >>>> appreciated.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks in advance,
> > > >>>> Navin
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 15:14 Erick Erickson <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> This seems like an XY problem. You're asking how to do X
> > > >>>>> because you think it will solve problem Y without telling
> > > >>>>> us what Y is.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> I say this because on the surface this seems to defeat the
> > > >>>>> purpose behind SolrCloud. Why would you want to only make
> > > >>>>> use of one piece of hardware? That will limit your throughput,
> > > >>>>> so why bother to have replicas in the first place?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Or is this some kind of diagnostic you're trying to implement?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>> Erick
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:08 AM, Novin Novin <[hidden email]
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Hi guys,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I am using solr 5.5.4 and same version for solrj. My question is
> > > there
> > > >>>>> any
> > > >>>>>> way I can tell cloud solr client to use only leader for queries.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks in advance.
> > > >>>>>> Navin
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>