Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 5283 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2005 18:08:45 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2005 18:08:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 37782 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2005 18:08:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-lucene-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 37668 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2005 18:08:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Lucene Users List" Reply-To: "Lucene Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list lucene-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 37654 invoked by uid 99); 24 Feb 2005 18:08:42 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from Unknown (HELO ehatchersolutions.com) (69.55.225.129) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 10:08:40 -0800 Received: by ehatchersolutions.com (Postfix, from userid 504) id 366C313E210C; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:08:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (va-chrvlle-cad1-bdgrp1-4b-b-169.chvlva.adelphia.net [68.169.41.169]) by ehatchersolutions.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1064D13E2006 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:08:35 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: <542774831.20050224200149@altervision.biz> References: <542774831.20050224200149@altervision.biz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Erik Hatcher Subject: Re: sorted search Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:08:34 -0500 To: "Lucene Users List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on javelina X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sorting by String uses up lots more RAM than a numeric sort. If you use a numeric (yet lexicographically orderable) date format (e.g. YYYYMMDD) you'll see better performance most likely. Erik On Feb 24, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Yura Smolsky wrote: > Hello, lucene-user. > > I have index with many documents, more than 40 Mil. > Each document has DateField (It is time stamp of document) > > I need the most recent results only. I use single instance of > IndexSearcher. > When I perform sorted search on this index: > Sort sort = new Sort(); > sort.setSort( new SortField[] { new SortField ("modified", > SortField.STRING, true) } ); > Hits hits = > searcher.search(QueryParser.parse("good", "content", > StandardAnalyzer()), sort); > > then search speed is not good. > > Today I have tried search without "sort by modified", but with sort by > Relevance. Speed was much better! > > I think that Sort by DateField is very slow. Maybe I do something > wrong about this kind of sorted search? Can you give me advices about > this? > > Thanks. > > Yura Smolsky. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: lucene-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: lucene-user-help@jakarta.apache.org