ok i see. I tried the same test with randomized values on the numeric DV and now the search speed is low and constant.
It's not gonna solve our issue since the values are relatively ordered in our case but it's good to know. On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Nicolas Guyot <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have written a quick test to reproduce the slower sorting with numeric > DV. > > In this test case, it happens only when reverse sorting. > > Right - I bet your numeric field is relatively ordered in the index. > When this happens, there is always one sort order that is less > efficient because the priority queue is constantly finding more > competitive hits as we search through the index. If you index random > numbers (or in a random order), the discrepancy between the sort order > should disappear. > > -Yonik > http://lucidworks.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
