Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 35833 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2009 22:05:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Dec 2009 22:05:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 77128 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2009 22:05:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jackrabbit-users-archive@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 77100 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2009 22:05:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@jackrabbit.apache.org Received: (qmail 77089 invoked by uid 99); 13 Dec 2009 22:05:47 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:05:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.18.2.26] (HELO exprod7og124.obsmtp.com) (64.18.2.26) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:05:45 +0000 Received: from source ([209.85.160.44]) by exprod7ob124.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSyVlIoEIjiMVBlWptOBELbVaFF2x44YG@postini.com; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:05:24 PST Received: by pwi15 with SMTP id 15so1762486pwi.3 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:05:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.90.10 with SMTP id s10mr2713077rvl.210.1260741922462; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 14:05:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4B221DF9.5050200@rug.nl> References: <4B177B0F.8040303@rug.nl> <697f8380912030104wb5e2d51xd8708b7c2de4a15@mail.gmail.com> <4B221DF9.5050200@rug.nl> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:05:22 +0100 Message-ID: <697f8380912131405o3914fe0ay728902eb03475199@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Searching for a property From: Ard Schrijvers To: users@jackrabbit.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello Dennis, On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Dennis van der Laan 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, >>