> Subject: Re: Solr query performance issue
>
> We actually want OR operator on those values. Filters can only do AND,
> right?
>
> Is it better performance to have the query as field1:01 field1:02 field1:03
> instead of field1:(01 02 03)?
>
> BR,
> Larry
>
Another little optimization would be to flatten the query.
Instead of "field1:(02 04 05) field2:(01 02 03)"
use "field1:02 field1:04 field1:05 field2:01 field2:02 field2:03"
But I'd try and narrow down what queries are taking a long time, and
see if there is a common element that could be optimize
Team
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org; yo...@lucidimagination.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:54:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: Solr query performance issue
> >
> > Yes, those terms are important in calculating the relevancy scores so
> they
> > are not in the filter queries.
on.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 4:54:34 PM
> Subject: Re: Solr query performance issue
>
> Yes, those terms are important in calculating the relevancy scores so they
> are not in the filter queries. I was hoping if I can cache everything about
> a field, any combinations on
Yes, those terms are important in calculating the relevancy scores so they
are not in the filter queries. I was hoping if I can cache everything about
a field, any combinations on the field values will be read from cache. Then
it does not matter if I query for field1:(02 04 05), or field1:(01 02)
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Larry He wrote:
> We have about 100 different fields and 1 million documents we indexed with
> Solr. Many of the fields are multi-valued, and some are numbers (for range
> search). We are expecting to perform solr queries contains over 30 terms
> and often the re
Hi All,
We have about 100 different fields and 1 million documents we indexed with
Solr. Many of the fields are multi-valued, and some are numbers (for range
search). We are expecting to perform solr queries contains over 30 terms
and often the response time is well over a second. I found that
