Hello Dennis,
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Dennis van der Laan
<d.g.van.der.laan@rug.nl> wrote:
> Hi Ard,
>
> Thanks! The performance went up by a factor x10. Still not what I hoped
> for, but I'm not sure the query itself is still a problem.
so now it is 100 ms? That is not to fast still. What is your query?
Furthermore, of course, index size matters as well
>
> A related question: could it be that when a query returns no results,
> this is slower than when it does return a result? Might it have
> something to do with Lucene not having an index for that particular
> property value?
No, an inverted index structure does not suffer from this
Regards Ard
>
>> Hello Dennis,
>>
|