lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geert-Jan Brits <gbr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Filter Performance in Solr 1.3
Date Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:55:15 GMT
fq's are the preferred way to use for filtering when the same filter is
often  used. (since the filter-set can be cached seperately) .

as to your direct question:
> My question is whether there is anything that can be done in 1.3 to
help alleviate the problem, before upgrading to 1.4?

I don't think so (perhaps some patches that I'm not aware of) .

When are you seeing increased search time?

is it the first time the filter is used? If that's the case: that's logical
since the filter needs to be build.
(fq)-filters only show their strength (as said above)  when you use them
repeatedly.

If on the other hand you're seeing slower repsonse times with a fq-filter
applied all the time, then the same queries without the fq-filter, there
must be something strange going on since this really shouldn't happen in
normal situations.

Geert-Jan





2010/8/11 Bargar, Matthew B <Matthew.Bargar@verizonwireless.com>

> Hi there, I have a question about filter (fq) performance in Solr 1.3.
> After doing some testing it seems as though adding a filter increases
> search time. From what I've read here
> http://www.derivante.com/2009/06/23/solr-filtering-performance-increase/
>
> and here
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2009/05/27/filtered-query-performan
> ce-increases-for-solr-14/
>
> it seems as though upgrading to 1.4 would solve this problem. My
> question is whether there is anything that can be done in 1.3 to help
> alleviate the problem, before upgrading to 1.4? It becomes an issue
> because the majority of searches that are done on our site need some
> content type excluded or filtered for. Does it make sense to use the fq
> parameter in this way, or is there some better approach since filters
> are almost always used?
>
> Thank you!
>

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