nded
> up
> with unified method for highlighter
>
> Thanks,
> Arun
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.
> nabble.com/Highlighting-Performance-improvement-
> suggestions-required-Solr-6-5-1-tp4349767p4349781.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Hi Amrit,
Thanks for the response. I did went through both and that is how I landed up
with unified method for highlighter
Thanks,
Arun
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Highlighting-Performance-improvement-suggestions-required-Solr-6-5-1-tp4349767p4349781
ussions on the highlighting performance issue.
> Though I tried to implement most of them, performance improvement was
> negative.
> Currently index count is really low with about 922 records . But the field
> on which highlighting is done is quite large data. Querying of data with
>
Hi All,
I found quite a few discussions on the highlighting performance issue.
Though I tried to implement most of them, performance improvement was
negative.
Currently index count is really low with about 922 records . But the field
on which highlighting is done is quite large data. Querying
igh IO wait, or both? (You can check this with the top command or
> vmstat
> > > command in Linux.)
> > >
> > > -Michael
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Cheng, Sophia Kuen [mailto:sophia_ch...@hms.harvard.edu]
> > > Se
ith the top command or vmstat
> > command in Linux.)
> >
> > -Michael
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Cheng, Sophia Kuen [mailto:sophia_ch...@hms.harvard.edu]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 4:13 PM
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>
or both? (You can check this with the top command or vmstat
> command in Linux.)
>
> -Michael
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Cheng, Sophia Kuen [mailto:sophia_ch...@hms.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 4:13 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject:
top command or vmstat command in
Linux.)
-Michael
-Original Message-
From: Cheng, Sophia Kuen [mailto:sophia_ch...@hms.harvard.edu]
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2015 4:13 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Upgraded to 4.10.3, highlighting performance unusably slow
Hello,
We recentl
Hello,
We recently upgraded solr from 3.8.0 to 4.10.3. We saw that this upgrade
caused a incredible slowdown in our searches. We were able to narrow it down to
the highlighting. The slowdown is extreme enough that we are holding back our
release until we can resolve this. Our research indicat
arch performance for these kind of files or even files having large file
size ?
Thanks
Shyam
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2011 8:57 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: highlighting performance poor
Highlighting is dependent on the size of the
data being fed through the highlighter. Unless you have
termVectors & offsets & positions enabled, the text
must be re-analyzed, see:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldOptionsByUseCase?highlight=%28termvector%29%7C%28retrieve%29%7C%28contents%29
But high
Hi,
It is observed that highlighting of search results is taking too much time
especially for highlighting terms for archived files like *.gz, *.tar, *.zip.
What could be the reason behind it ? Is it because these files are unzipped and
then highlighted from the index during display time ?
Or is
To search in a field, it has to be indexed. You can store a field
without indexing if you want to highlight it. If you index it with the
term* options, it should highlight faster. Since these do not speed up
higlighting, your analysis stack is probably very simple. The term*
options are variations
Hi,
Sorry for the second e-mail, but for the duplication problem, I have done
something wrong, ok now it works, and the query time reduced to 0.1 seconds
which is perfect. However, still if I use
term* directives, it gives the same error, so either I will index short_text
field as well o
Hi,
Thanks. However as I said before, termOffsets/termPositions/termVectors had
very little effect on the performance and I don't know why. I have done
exactly what you are saying but highlighting 10 documents that have 200-400
A4 pages still takes around 2 seconds, depending on the query. I will
If you want to highlight field X, doing the
termOffsets/termPositions/termVectors will make highlighting that
field faster. You should make a separate field and apply these options
to that field.
Now: doing a copyfield adds a "value" to a multiValued field. For a
text field, you get a multi-valued
Hi,
Thanks a lot for the replies, I could have chance today to test them.
First of all termVectors/termPositions/termOffsets did not help, it has very
little effect, but I tried a workaroud, however it is not as efficient as I
thought.
>From these fields;
I
Do you have these options turned on when you index the text field:
termVectors/termPositions/termOffsets ?
Highlighting needs the information created by these anlysis options.
If they are not turned on, Solr has load the document text and run the
analyzer again with these options on, uses that dat
(10/05/05 22:08), Serdar Sahin wrote:
Hi,
Currently, there are similar topics active in the mailing list, but it I did
not want to steal the topic.
I have currently indexed 100.000 documents, they are microsoft office/pdf
etc documents I convert them to TXT files before indexing. Files are betw
Hi,
Currently, there are similar topics active in the mailing list, but it I did
not want to steal the topic.
I have currently indexed 100.000 documents, they are microsoft office/pdf
etc documents I convert them to TXT files before indexing. Files are between
1-500 pages. When I search something
Hi,
I've seen the use case for highlighting on:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldOptionsByUseCase
I just wanted to confirm that for best performance
Indexed=true
Stored=true
termVectors=true
termPositions=true
is the way to go for highlighting for Solr 1.4. Note that I'm not doing
anything el
termine
which best suits are needs.
Jake
-Original Message-
From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:23 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Highlighting performance between 1.3 and 1.4rc
The 1.4 highl
-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Highlighting performance between 1.3 and 1.4rc
The 1.4 highlighter is Now slower if you have multi term queries or
phrase queries. You can get the old behavior (which is faster) if you
pass usePhraseHighlighter=false - but you
The 1.4 highlighter is Now slower if you have multi term queries or
phrase queries. You can get the old behavior (which is faster) if you
pass usePhraseHighlighter=false - but you will not get correct phrase
highlighting and multi term queries won't highlight - eg prefix/
wildcard/range.
-
Hi,
The fix MarkM provided yesterday for the problem I reported encountering with
the highlighter appears to be working--I installed the Lucene 2.9.1 rc4
artifacts.
Now I'm running into an oddity regarding performance. Our integration test is
running slower than it used to. I've placed some av
m vectors enabled will make things faster (and your index a bit
bigger).
Otis --
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Matt Mitchell
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 5:08:23 PM
Subject: highlighting perfor
r highlighting with
>> term vectors enabled will make things faster (and your index a bit
>> bigger).
>>
>>
>> Otis --
>> Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message
>> > From: Mat
Lucene - Solr - Nutch
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Matt Mitchell
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 5:08:23 PM
> > Subject: highlighting performance
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm experimentin
r-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 5:08:23 PM
> Subject: highlighting performance
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm experimenting with highlighting and am noticing a big drop in
> performance with my setup. I have documents that use quite a few dynamic
> fields (20-30)
Hi,
I'm experimenting with highlighting and am noticing a big drop in
performance with my setup. I have documents that use quite a few dynamic
fields (20-30). The fields are multiValued stored/indexed text fields, each
with a few paragraphs worth of text. My hl.fl param is set to *_t
What kinds o
30 matches
Mail list logo
