Why are numeric fields more onerous in filling the field-cache?
On 11/20/05, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I haven't done measurements, but the first query with a sort on a > particular field will involve filling the field-cache and that can > take a while (especially for numeric fields). > > If you haven't already, you should compare the query times of a > "warmed" searcher. Sorted queries will still take longer, but I > haven't measured how much longer. > > -Yonik > Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706 > > On 11/20/05, Jeff Rodenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've read many comments from users on the list indicating that sorting > > may/will be performance-heavy. Is high CPU utilization with a sorted > search > > one of the expected performance hits? > > > > In tests for our implementation (25 concurrent connections generating > > search/sort requests), we've seen performance in terms of > requests/second > > drop by a factor of 10, compared to similar tests executing only search > > requests (no sorts). CPU appears to be our bottleneck, and I'm trying to > > determine if this is expected behavior or if we're outside the bounds of > > typical performance. > > > > Thanks, > > jeff > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
