a filter but not cache it. As we see, there is some added cost to
building a filter, so if you pay this cost over and over, would it not be
better to just use ^=?
Have a good day,
Esther
From:
Erick Erickson
To:
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date:
25/06/2015 03:27 PM
Subject:
Re: fq versus q
;
>> clauses, is there anything we can do on 4.7?
>> 3.1) The ^= operator is only available in 5.1, which seems exactly what we
>> need.
>> 3.2) Adding the filter clauses to the query w/ boost 0 will still compute
>> their score, only they won't affect the overall
olved to ConstantScoreQuery down stream), what is the use case for
> using fq w/ !cache=false? As we understand it, users who use this want to
> compute a filter but not cache it. As we see, there is some added cost to
> building a filter, so if you pay this cost over and over, would it not
added cost to
building a filter, so if you pay this cost over and over, would it not be
better to just use ^=?
Best regards,
Esther
From:
Erick Erickson
To:
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date:
25/06/2015 02:38 AM
Subject:
Re: fq versus q
Tell us a bit more about your test setup. 1 or 2 t
-user@lucene.apache.org"
Cc:
Arnon Yogev/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Shai Erera/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
Date:
25/06/2015 02:50 AM
Subject:
Re: fq versus q
Why is cache=false set for the filter?
Grouping uses a 2 pass algorithm by default, so that means that the
filter will need to be generated twice (I think) if caching is
n 24, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Esther Goldbraich
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
> actually filters and should not be cached.
> In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
> than fq. The question is why?
&
to
>> > > run a query that does not score, but only filter. The rationale behind
>> > > using a non-cached 'fq' was just that.
>> > >
>> > > Shai
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Shawn Heisey
>> >
valence to ConstantScoreQuery? I.e., what if you want to
> > > run a query that does not score, but only filter. The rationale behind
> > > using a non-cached 'fq' was just that.
> > >
> > > Shai
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Shawn
015 at 4:29 PM, Shawn Heisey
> wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/24/2015 5:28 AM, Esther Goldbraich wrote:
> > > > We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
> > > > actually filters and should not be cached.
> > > > In part of que
2015 5:28 AM, Esther Goldbraich wrote:
> > > We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
> > > actually filters and should not be cached.
> > > In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x
> better
> > > than fq. The qu
> In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
> than fq. The question is why?
Are you sure that the query result cache is disabled ?
2015-06-24 13:28 GMT+02:00 Esther Goldbraich :
> Hi,
>
> We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for q
15 5:28 AM, Esther Goldbraich wrote:
> > We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
> > actually filters and should not be cached.
> > In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
> > than fq. The question is why?
> >
On 6/24/2015 5:28 AM, Esther Goldbraich wrote:
> We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
> actually filters and should not be cached.
> In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
> than fq. The question is why?
>
>
:
fq versus q
Hi,
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
than fq. The question is why?
An example1:
q=maildate:{DATE1 to DATE2} COMPARED TO fq
Hi,
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
than fq. The question is why?
An example1:
q=maildate:{DATE1 to DATE2} COMPARED TO fq={!cache=false
15 matches
Mail list logo
