My epoch looks like 1110816121 but is represented by a string.
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:41 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: search performace
On Mar 17, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Michael Celona wrote:
> Epoch is in seconds...
But you still haven't provided the *type* of epoch. It's a Date? a
String? What do the string values look like?
> I am also forced to used a date filter on most of
> searches... how bad is the performance hit of that.
Only testing will tell. The hit of a filter comes the first time (as
long as you cache and use the same IndexReader), so its not likely to
be a factor over many queries.
Erik
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:54 AM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: search performace
>
> Is epoch a Date? or a String? If a String, what format is it?
>
> Sorting by a Date keyword field will be sorting as a String value,
> which is a fair bit more resource intensive than if it was numeric.
>
> Try using a purely numeric field (though as a String) that can be
> represented as an int be sure to specify the sort type as an int and
> see if that improves performance. I'm pretty certain you'd still get
> better performance by using a boost than a sort though.
>
> Erik
>
> On Mar 17, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Michael Celona wrote:
>
>> I am sorting against an epoch time stored in my index. By using:
>>
>> contactDocument.add( Field.Keyword( "epoch_time", epoch );
>>
>> Then I sort by this field. My search time is in the order of 3sec on
>> an
>> index of about 6G using simple searches against a text field. By
>> using
>> boosts I was hoping to increase performance. Do you think this will
>> make a
>> big difference?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 8:43 AM
>> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: search performace
>>
>> I've been effectively off-line for a few days, so I'm not sure if
>> anyone has replied on this thread yet.
>>
>> Using boosts will definitely use less resources than sorting. If you
>> do use sorting for dates, be sure you're doing it numerically rather
>> than lexicographically.
>>
>> Erik
>>
>> On Mar 10, 2005, at 8:45 AM, Michael Celona wrote:
>>
>>> I have a large index that needs to yield very fast query times. I am
>>> sorting by date as default since I am interested in the most recent
>>> documents. I was wondering if I boosted the score of my documents in
>>> proportion to the date and not sorting would this increase search
>>> performance. Thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
