Quickwit 0.8: Indexing and Search at Petabyte Scale(quickwit.io)
quickwit.io
Quickwit 0.8: Indexing and Search at Petabyte Scale
https://quickwit.io/blog/quickwit-0.8
30 comments
Ah Loki, I wanted to try it at my homelab bit it wasn't as simple as it says. Now I wanted to try Zincsearch or Openobserve. Have you tried that?
You might want to have a look at SigNoz [1] as well. We have also published some perf benchmark wrt Elastic & Loki [2] and have some cool features like logs pipeline for manipulating logs before ingestion
[1] https://github.com/signoz/signoz [2] https://signoz.io/blog/logs-performance-benchmark/
[1] https://github.com/signoz/signoz [2] https://signoz.io/blog/logs-performance-benchmark/
in case it matters to others, https://github.com/openobserve/openobserve/tree/v0.7.0 is the last Apache2 licensed copy before they went AGPL with 0.7.1
https://github.com/openobserve/openobserve/blob/v0.7.0/.env.... is some "onoz" for me, but just recently someone submitted https://github.com/aenix-io/etcd-operator to the CNCF sandbox so maybe things have gotten better around keeping that PoS alive
https://github.com/openobserve/openobserve/blob/v0.7.0/.env.... is some "onoz" for me, but just recently someone submitted https://github.com/aenix-io/etcd-operator to the CNCF sandbox so maybe things have gotten better around keeping that PoS alive
> it wasn't as simple as it says
mind elaborating? we built loki for some pretty massive scale but I've always tried to make it work at super small scale to. what went wrong?
mind elaborating? we built loki for some pretty massive scale but I've always tried to make it work at super small scale to. what went wrong?
I use OpenObserve and I quite enjoy it
Tantivity is great!
Here is a postgres extension that uses it to provide full text search
https://blog.paradedb.com/pages/introducing_bm25
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37557127
Here is a postgres extension that uses it to provide full text search
https://blog.paradedb.com/pages/introducing_bm25
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37557127
tantivy, not tantivity!!!!!
Some companies are using it with AWS Lambda to scale to 0.
We did some experimentation with quickwit about a year ago, writing about 1m docs/second of data into it for several months. It worked well and was pretty straight forward to learn and operate. If we didn’t also manage our own S3/Ceph it might be a big win, once feature complete. It’s definitely worth a look.
I think you can use quickwit with a self-hosted S3-compatible object store.
Amazing to see how far Tantiviy has come. Remember using and making some smaller contributions to this 3 years ago - slop to phrase queries for example. Curious how the design has changed to enable large scale production usage.
Thanks! Quickwit is the distributed engine built on top of tantivy, we basically separated compute and storage for search, I wrote this blog post to introduce the architecture: https://quickwit.io/blog/quickwit-101
PS: it’s tantivy!!!
PS: it’s tantivy!!!
Very valuable contribution!
13.4GB/s with 200x6 vcpus, gives 11MB/s per core, it is good but hard to say impressive.
Building the inverted index is quite CPU-intensive, and we are also merging index files called "splits".
I never being able to understand why log indexing has to build inverted index. Decent columnar store with partitioning by date should be enough to quickly filter gigabytes of logs.
Because you want to find all occurrences of "error abc123" over the last year, immediately?
Quickwit co-founder here...
I actually agree. For a few GBs, done right, columnar works fine AND is cost efficient.
After all, it does not matter much if a log search query answers in 300ms or 1s. However, there are use cases where a few GB just does not cut it.
The tale saying that you can always prune your dataset using timestamp and tags is simply not always valid.
After all, it does not matter much if a log search query answers in 300ms or 1s. However, there are use cases where a few GB just does not cut it.
The tale saying that you can always prune your dataset using timestamp and tags is simply not always valid.
Can you share your experience of when columnar fails?
It is possible to scan NVMe at a speed of multiple GB/sec, scans can be parallel and happen on multiple disks, over compressed data (10 Gb of logs ~ 1Gb to scan), data can be segmented and prefaced with Blum filters, to quickly check if a segment is worth scanning.
It is possible to scan NVMe at a speed of multiple GB/sec, scans can be parallel and happen on multiple disks, over compressed data (10 Gb of logs ~ 1Gb to scan), data can be segmented and prefaced with Blum filters, to quickly check if a segment is worth scanning.
I'm not the person you asked, but say you have 10 TB of logs.
Assuming 3 GB/s SSD, 10 SSDs, and a compression as you suggested of 10x, a query for finding a string in the text would take 10000 / 3 / 10 / 10 = 33 seconds.
With an index, you can easily get it 100x faster, and that factor gets larger as your data grows.
In general it's just that O(log(n)) wins over O(n) when n gets large.
I didn't take your Bloom filter idea into consideration as it is not immediately obvious how a Bloom filter can support all filter operations that an index can. Also, the index gives you the exact position of the match, when the bloom filter only gives you existence, thus potentially still resulting in a large read amplication factor of a scan in the segment vs direct random access.
Assuming 3 GB/s SSD, 10 SSDs, and a compression as you suggested of 10x, a query for finding a string in the text would take 10000 / 3 / 10 / 10 = 33 seconds.
With an index, you can easily get it 100x faster, and that factor gets larger as your data grows.
In general it's just that O(log(n)) wins over O(n) when n gets large.
I didn't take your Bloom filter idea into consideration as it is not immediately obvious how a Bloom filter can support all filter operations that an index can. Also, the index gives you the exact position of the match, when the bloom filter only gives you existence, thus potentially still resulting in a large read amplication factor of a scan in the segment vs direct random access.
I’m thinking of how a data lake with parquet files can be structured. Each parquet file has header with summary statistics about the data, it has Blum filters too. A scanner would inspect files falling into the requested time range, for each file it would check headers, find ranges of data to scan. This is the theory, in which the scanner is not so much slower than index access while also allowing for efficient aggregations over log data.
What is your frame of reference?
Per-core store bandwidth is at least 14GB/s on Zen3, 35GB/s for non-temporal stores. Parsing JSON can be done at +2GB/s.
It's very healthy to take maximum bandwidth limits into consideration when reasoning about performance. For instance, for temporal stores, the bottlenecks you see are due to RAM latency and memory parallelism, because of the write-allocate. The load/store uarch can actually retire way more data from SIMD registers.
So there's already some headroom for CPU-bound tasks. For instance 11MB/s is very slow for JIT baseline compiler. But if your particular problem demands arbitrary random access that exceed L3 regularly, maybe that speed is justified.
It's very healthy to take maximum bandwidth limits into consideration when reasoning about performance. For instance, for temporal stores, the bottlenecks you see are due to RAM latency and memory parallelism, because of the write-allocate. The load/store uarch can actually retire way more data from SIMD registers.
So there's already some headroom for CPU-bound tasks. For instance 11MB/s is very slow for JIT baseline compiler. But if your particular problem demands arbitrary random access that exceed L3 regularly, maybe that speed is justified.
What we do is CPU bound and we are not just parsing JSON here.
The largest work we do is building an inverted index. Oversimplified, it is equivalent to this:
You can implement it in a couple of hours in the language of your choice to get a proper baseline.
I am sure we can still improve our indexing throughput... but I have never seen any search engine indexing as fast as tantivy.
If someone knows a project I should know of, I'd be genuinely keen on learning from it.
The largest work we do is building an inverted index. Oversimplified, it is equivalent to this:
inverted_index = defaultdict(list)
for (doc_id, doc_json) in enumerate(doc_jsons):
c = json.loads(payload)
for (field, field_text) in c.items():
for (position, token) in enumerate():
inverted_index[token].push((doc, position))
You can implement it in a couple of hours in the language of your choice to get a proper baseline.
I am sure we can still improve our indexing throughput... but I have never seen any search engine indexing as fast as tantivy.
If someone knows a project I should know of, I'd be genuinely keen on learning from it.
[deleted]
I'm curious, what is your frame of reference with regards to maximum speed of building inverted indices? Like, what is the maximum throughput you'd expect for this type of task, and what is your reasoning for it?
musl support would be highly appreciated.
We used to have one. Maybe we can revive it. What is your use case?
[deleted]
I also decide to use Tantivy (the rust library powering/written by Quickwit) for my own bookmarking search tool by embedding it in Elixir, and the API and docs have been quite pleasant to work with. Hats of to the team, looking forward to what's coming next!