Mailing-List: contact java-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of erickerickson@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.214.228 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=E2aKjWr2EWd2qqbtf3u2MWREL4LarUuDbxSx5kDbujutVi0w7/xDo6aVkzWIsaWYbFxjh7lFWX8piWb1s1d98Kl4XQwKeDf2x/x9l/IN1uKlwthTuXP8KpmSsoaUmqVTAhSrRlZF80Ee5U7Suxpq2RM7XBYqmevJEYhvUk2uQTg=
Message-ID: <359a92830802130727n6316e394tfa6cf51455587be5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:27:47 -0500
From: "Erick Erickson" <erickerickson@gmail.com>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lucene multiple field search performance
In-Reply-To: <15456841.post@talk.nabble.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_1751_24134272.1202916467071"
References: <15448754.post@talk.nabble.com>
	 <652776090802122244x35a3af13o6222370bb0025837@mail.gmail.com>
	 <15456841.post@talk.nabble.com>

------=_Part_1751_24134272.1202916467071
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Have you looked at the query.toString()? In particular, is your
date being split up into pieces on the slashes?

But why it's working today, I have no clue. Unless you were seeing
results on a freshly-opened reader yesterday....

Erick

On Feb 13, 2008 7:12 AM, Cesar Ronchese <ronchese@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Yes, it is optimized already.
>
> But today, when I got to test again, its looks like quick. :S
> I can't understand why.
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Stoppelman wrote:
> >
> > Did your index size increase drastically?
> >
> > As a first step I would recommend optimizing your index if you haven't
> > already.
> >
> > -M
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2008 7:42 PM, Cesar Ronchese <ronchese@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I was doing normal queries happily, seeing the results statistics come
> in
> >> about 0.02 seconds.
> >>
> >> But then, I added a extra field to seach togheter with the normal
> query,
> >> then the statistic pulled up to 0.35 seconds. That was a lot.
> >>
> >> example:
> >> normal query: some test (it returns quick)
> >> extra field query: +bookDate:"2007/02/12" some test (it returns slow. I
> >> also
> >> tried without +)
> >>
> >> Is the reduced performance normal for this case?
> >>
> >>
> >> Another doubt, I thought forcing bookDate in the Search Text it would
> >> reduce
> >> the universe of search, then leading to quicker responses. But it
> didn't.
> >> Is
> >> there a trick to improve the speed?
> >>
> >> Cesar
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-multiple-field-search-performance-tp15448754p15448754.html
> >> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-multiple-field-search-performance-tp15448754p15456841.html
> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

------=_Part_1751_24134272.1202916467071--