lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shaun Senecal <>
Subject Re: PrefixQueries on large indexes (4M+ Documents) using a partial Query partial Filter solution
Date Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:57:06 GMT
Sorry for the double post, but I think I can clarify the problem a little

We want to execute:
    query: A | B | C | D
    filter: null

However, C and D cause TooManyClauses, so instead we execute:
    query: A | B
    filter: C | D

My understanding is that Lucene will apply the Filter (C | D) first,
limiting the result set, then apply the Query (A | B).  Is this correct?

If so, the end result is essentially the query: (A | B) & (C | D)

Is there any way I can achieve (A | B | C | D) without putting the entire
query into a filter (which is too slow)?


On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Shaun Senecal <>wrote:

> I know this has been discussed to great length, but I still have not found
> a satisfactory solution and I am hoping someone on the list has some
> ideas...
> We have a large index (4M+ Documents) with a handful of Fields.  We need to
> perform PrefixQueries on multiple fields.  The problem is that when the
> Query gets rewritten, certain fields expand to too many terms and we end up
> with TooManyClauses (I know, I know, read the FAQ).  The solution so far has
> been to extract the bits of the query which cause TooManyClauses to be
> thrown and make them filters:
> for every field to be searched {
>     try {
>         PrefixQuery(term).rewrite();
>         if (resulting BooleanQuery contains at least 1 clause) //
> important, otherwise 0 results can be returned when >0 should be returned
>             add the rewritten query to a BooleanQuery (using SHOULD)
>     catch (TMC) {
>         PrefixFilter(term)
>         add the filter to a BooleanFilter(using SHOULD)
>     }
> }
> Up to Lucene 2.4, this has been working out for us.  However, in Lucene 2.9
> this breaks since rewrite() now returns a ConstantScoreQuery.  I changed the
> code to automatically make the entire query a filter if TooManyClauses is
> ever caught, but this had massive performance implications.  It seems to
> have doubled our average query execution time!
> Is there a solution to this?  Is there a way I can know that a
> ConstantScoreQuery will match at least 1 term (if not, I dont want to add it
> to the BooleanQuery)?  Does 2.9 support new features that would aid in this
> area?

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message