lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jonathan Ariel" <>
Subject Re: Date range performance
Date Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:56:44 GMT
Ok. Just to give some feedback.
I reindexed with less precision as you told me and it's working really fast.
Thanks for your help!


On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Chris Hostetter <>

> : Looking into the code it seems like a Lucene problem, more than Solr. It
> is
> : in the RangeQuery and RangeFilter classes. The problem with changing
> this to
> : have a sorted index and than binary search is that you have to sort it,
> : which is slow. Unless we can store the ordered index somewhere and reuse
> it,
> : it will be even slower than now. And if we store it, we will have to
> face
> : the problem with updating ordered index with new terms.
> FWIW: Lucene Term enumeration is already indexed, it's just not a binary
> search tree (the details escape me at the moment, but there there is an
> interval value of N somewhere in the code, and every Nth Term is loaded
> into memory so a can skip ahead N terms at a time).
> But the number of unique terms can be a bottle neck ... rounding to the
> level of precision you absolutely need can save you in these cases by
> reducing the number of unique terms.
> -Hoss

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