You should use DateTools to break up your time stamp into multiple fields. This can work a lot faster than using a field with so many different terms.
Are you using a RangeQuery? If you are, ditch it and use a ConstantScoreRangeQuery. The former will expand the query to a boolean that contains each matching unique term while the latter will just score 1 for each matching doc. > My questions: > - Is Lucene sorting then search or is it doing search then sort the > results? > - Is there a way to get this type of searches to return faster with > heavier weight on the timestamp not on relevancy? I believe that Lucene is scoring docs, and as it scores them, dropping them into a priority queue that sorts...normally by the score, but optionally by fields as well. - Mark On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 09:49 -0700, Fleming Shi wrote: > Here is the problem: > > - Single Large index with upto 200 million documents > - Each document contains field using epoch timestamp format (padding > is required when creating range requests) > - One of the frequently used search query, a range request on the > timestamp field (10 digits) > - Other searches are fine, but the search using range request > (1207190000 to 1207190258), even small result set, still slow when > "sort" is requested > > My questions: > - Is Lucene sorting then search or is it doing search then sort the > results? > - Is there a way to get this type of searches to return faster with > heavier weight on the timestamp not on relevancy? > > Any insight would be greatly appreciated > > /Regards > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
