lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <>
Subject Re: DocSet getting cached in filterCache for facet request with {!cache=false}
Date Tue, 11 Nov 2014 16:40:26 GMT
Well, the difference that you're faceting with method=enum, which uses
the filterCache (I think, it's been a while).

I admit I'm a little surprised that when I tried faceting with the
"inStock" field in the standard distro I got 3 entries when there are
only two values but I'm willing to let that go ;)

i.e. this produces 3 entries in the filterCache:

not an fq clause in sight..


On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Shawn Heisey <> wrote:
> On 11/11/2014 1:22 AM, Mohsin Beg Beg wrote:
>> It seems Solr is caching when facting even with fq={!cache=false}*:* specified. This
is what I am doing on Solr 4.10.0 on jre 1.7.0_51.
>> Query 1) No cache in filterCache as expected
>> http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=*:*&rows=0&fq={!cache=false}*:*
>> http://localhost:8983/solr/#/collection1/plugins/cache?entry=filterCache confirms
>> Query 2) Query result docset cached in filterCache unexpectedly ?
>> http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=*:*&rows=0&fq={!cache=false}*:*&facet=true&facet.field=foobar&facet.method=enum
>> http://localhost:8983/solr/#/collection1/plugins/cache?entry=filterCache shows entry
of item_*:*: cached.
>> Suggestions why or how this may be avoided since I don't want to cache anything other
than facet(ed) terms in the filterCache (for predictable heap usage).
> I hope this is just for testing, because fq=*:* is completely
> unnecessary, and will cause Solr to do extra work that it doesn't need
> to do.
> Try changing that second query so q and fq are not the same, so you can
> see for sure which one is producing the filterCache entry.  With the
> same query for both, you cannot know which one is populating the
> filterCache.  If it's coming from the q parameter, then it's probably
> working as designed.  If it comes from the fq, then we probably actually
> do have a problem that needs investigation.
> Thanks,
> Shawn

View raw message