Sure, here is the link to the image of term histograms. Thanks. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1tma4hkYjxJfBTnMbO6Pq_dUHqZ0wI_UTlgoVqXtW4ZA/edit?usp=sharing
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Anshum Gupta <ans...@anshumgupta.net> wrote: > Hi Lei, > > The mailing list doesn't allow attachments. Can you share these via a file > sharing platform? > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:48 AM, lei <simpl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The Solr instance is single-shard. Index size is around 20G and total doc > > # is about 12 million. Below are the histograms for the three facet > fields > > in my query. Thanks. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Toke Eskildsen <t...@statsbiblioteket.dk> > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 21:14 +0100, lei wrote: > >> > >> You present a very interesting observation. I have not noticed what you > >> describe, but on the other hand we have not done comparative speed > >> tests. > >> > >> > q=*:*&fq=country:"US"&fq=category:112 > >> > >> First observation: Your query is '*:*, which is a "magic" query. Non-DV > >> faceting has optimizations both for this query (although that ought to > >> be disabled due to the fq) and for the "inverse" case where there are > >> more hits than non-hits. Perhaps you could test with a handful of > >> queries, which has different result sizes? > >> > >> > &facet=on&facet.sort=index&facet.mincount=1&facet.limit=2000 > >> > >> The combination of index order and a high limit might be an explanation: > >> When resolving the Strings of the facet result, non-DV will perform > >> ordinal-lookup, which is fast when done in monotonic rising order > >> (sort=index) and if the values are close (limit=2000). I do not know if > >> DV benefits the same way. > >> > >> On the other hand, your limit seems to apply only to material, so it > >> could be that the real number of unique values is low and you just set > >> the limit to 2000 to be sure you get everything? > >> > >> > &facet.field=manufacturer&facet.field=seller&facet.field=material > >> > > >> > &f.manufacturer.facet.mincount=1&f.manufacturer.facet.sort=count&f.manufacturer.facet.limit=100 > >> > > >> > &f.seller.facet.mincount=1&f.seller.facet.sort=count&f.seller.facet.limit=100 > >> > &f.material.facet.mincount=1&sort=score+desc > >> > >> How large is your index in bytes, how many documents does it contain and > >> is it single-shard or cloud? Could you paste the loglines containing > >> "UnInverted field", which describes the number of unique values and size > >> of your facet fields? > >> > >> - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark > >> > >> > > > -- > Anshum Gupta >
