lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Date filter query
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:17:59 GMT
Be a little careful here. Any "fq" that references NOW will probably
NOT be effectively cached. Think of the fq cache as a map, with
the key being the fq clause and the value being the set of
documents that match that value.

So something like NOW gives
2012-01-23T00:00:00Z
but issuing that a second later gives:
2012-01-23T00:00:01Z

so the keys don't match, they're considered
different fq clauses and the calculations are all
done all over again.

Using the rounding for date math will help here,
something like NOW/DAY+1DAY to get midnight tonight
will give you something that's re-used, similarly for
NOW/DAY-30DAY etc.

All that said, your query times are pretty long. I doubt
that your fq clause is really the culprit here. You need
to find out what the bottleneck is here, consider using
jconsole to see what your machine is occupying its
time with. Examine your cache statistics to see
if your getting good usage from your cache. You
haven't detailed what you're measuring. If this is just
a half-dozen queries after starting Solr, you may get
much better performance if you autowarm.

You may have too little memory allocated. You may be
swapping to disk a lot. You may.....

What have you tried and what have the results been?

In short, these times are very suspect and you haven't
really provided much info to go on.

Best
Erick

On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Em <mailformailinglists@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> But they [the cache configurations] are default for both tests, can it
> affect on
>> results?
> Yes, they affect both results. Try to increase the values for
> queryResultCache and documentCache from 512 to 1024 (provided that you
> got two distinct queries "bay" and "girl"). In general they should fit
> the amount of documents and results you are expecting to have in a way
> that chances are good to have a cache-hit.
>
>> Maybe it is that I use shards. I have 11 shards, summary ~310M docs.
> 11 shards on the same machine? Could lead to decreased performance due
> to disk-io.
>
> Did you tried my advice of adjusting the precisionSteps of your
> TrieDateFields and reindexed your documents afterwards?
>
> Kind regards,
> Em
>
>
> Am 21.02.2012 22:52, schrieb ku3ia:
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> First: I am really surprised that the difference between explicit
>>>> Date-Values and the more friendly date-keywords is that large.
>> Maybe it is that I use shards. I have 11 shards, summary ~310M docs.
>>
>>>> Did you made a server restart between both tests?
>> I tried to run these test one after another, I'd rebooted my tomcats, I'd
>> run second test first and vice versa.
>>
>>>> Second: Could you show us your solrconfig to make sure that your caches
>>>> are configured well?
>> I'm using solrconfig from solr/example directory. The difference is that I
>> only commented out unused components. Filter, document and query result
>> cache is default. But they are default for both tests, can it affect on
>> results?
>>
>>>> Furthermore: Take into consideration, whether you really need 500 rows
>>>> per request.
>> Yes, I need 500 rows.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3764941.html
>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>

Mime
View raw message