Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1B8C183EF for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:51:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 1829 invoked by uid 500); 19 Aug 2015 17:51:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 1759 invoked by uid 500); 19 Aug 2015 17:51:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-user-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 1748 invoked by uid 99); 19 Aug 2015 17:51:17 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:51:17 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B6D90C0856 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:51:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.737 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.737 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EKEAu97-fVNR for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:51:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mwork.nabble.com (mwork.nabble.com [162.253.133.43]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 2060B21273 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:51:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mben.nabble.com (unknown [162.253.133.72]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34E12269D9C3 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:51:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:51:07 -0700 (MST) From: wwang525 To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: <1440006667689-4223988.post@n3.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <1440002895.1489769.360477145.1BF41081@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1439922684403-4223744.post@n3.nabble.com> <1439929023127-4223758.post@n3.nabble.com> <1439990708950-4223920.post@n3.nabble.com> <1439995838.2168580.360359697.6E2D5950@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1440000779544-4223960.post@n3.nabble.com> <1440002895.1489769.360477145.1BF41081@webmail.messagingengine.com> Subject: Re: Is it a good query performance with this data size ? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Upayavira, I happened to compose individual fq for each field, such as: fq=Gatewaycode:(...)&fq=DestCode:(...)&fq=DateDep:(...)&fq=Duration:(...) It is nice to know that I am not creating unnecessary cache entries since the above method results in minimal carnality as you pointed out. Thank -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Is-it-a-good-query-performance-with-this-data-size-tp4223699p4223988.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.