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 181A01829C for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 94442 invoked by uid 500); 18 Apr 2016 11:06:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-user-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 94371 invoked by uid 500); 18 Apr 2016 11:06:11 -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 94360 invoked by uid 99); 18 Apr 2016 11:06:10 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:10 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id D9B761A02EC for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.486 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.486 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972, URI_HEX=1.313] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xPdy8XlncLV1 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mwork.nabble.com (mwork.nabble.com [162.253.133.43]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id C97775FB3D for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mben.nabble.com (unknown [162.253.133.72]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B562923493D94 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 04:06:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 04:06:05 -0700 (MST) From: Mugeesh Husain To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Message-ID: <1460977565474-4270907.post@n3.nabble.com> Subject: normal solr query vs facet query performance MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, I am looking for which query will be fast in term of performance, 1.)solr normal query(q=*:*) vs facet query(facet.query="abc") ? 2.)solr normal query(q=*:*) vs facet search(facet=tru&facet.field=coullumn_name) ? 3.)solr filter query(q=Column:some value) vs facet query(facet.query="abc") ? 4.)solr normal query(q=*:*) vs filter query(q=column:some value) ? Also provide some good tutorial for above these things. Thanks -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/normal-solr-query-vs-facet-query-performance-tp4270907.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.