Hi, Thanks for the feedback. The queries I run are very basic filter queries with some sorting.
q:*:*&fq=(dt1:[date1 TO *] && dt2:[* TO NOW/DAY+1]) && fieldA:abc && fieldB:(123 OR 456)&sort=dt1 asc,field2 asc, fieldC desc I noticed that the date fields(dt1,dt2) are using date instead of tdate fields & there are no docValues set on any of the fields used for sorting. In order to fix this I plan to add a new field using tdate & docvalues where required to the schema & update the new columns only for documents that have fieldA set to abc. Once the fields are updated query on the new fields to measure query performance . - Would the new added fields be used effectively by the solr index when querying & filtering? What I am not sure is whether only populating small number of documents(fieldA:abc) that are used for the above query provide performance benefits. - Would there be a performance penalty because majority of the documents(!fieldA:abc) dont have values in the new columns? Thanks On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Jay Potharaju <jspothar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Any links that illustrate and talk about solr internals and how > indexing/querying works would be a great help. > Thanks > Jay > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Jay Potharaju <jspothar...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> Thanks for the feedback. The queries I run are very basic filter queries >> with some sorting. >> >> q:*:*&fq=(dt1:[date1 TO *] && dt2:[* TO NOW/DAY+1]) && fieldA:abc && >> fieldB:(123 OR 456)&sort=dt1 asc,field2 asc, fieldC desc >> >> I noticed that the date fields(dt1,dt2) are using date instead of tdate >> fields & there are no docValues set on any of the fields used for sorting. >> >> In order to fix this I plan to add a new field using tdate & docvalues >> where required to the schema & update the new columns only for documents >> that have fieldA set to abc. Once the fields are updated query on the new >> fields to measure query performance . >> >> >> - Would the new added fields be used effectively by the solr index >> when querying & filtering? What I am not sure is whether only populating >> small number of documents(fieldA:abc) that are used for the above query >> provide performance benefits. >> - Would there be a performance penalty because majority of the >> documents(!fieldA:abc) dont have values in the new columns? >> >> >> Thanks >> Jay >> >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Try adding debug=timing, that'll give you an idea of what component is >>> taking all the time. >>> From there, it's "more art than science". >>> >>> But you haven't given us much to go on. What is the query? Are you >>> grouping? >>> Faceting on high-cardinality fields? Returning 10,000 rows? >>> >>> Best, >>> Erick >>> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Is it QueryComponent taking time? >>> > Ot other components? >>> > >>> > Also make sure there is plenty of RAM for OS cache. >>> > >>> > Ahmet >>> > >>> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2016 1:47 AM, Jay Potharaju < >>> jspothar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > I am trying to debug solr performance problems on an old version of >>> solr, >>> > 4.3.1. >>> > The queries are taking really long -in the range of 2-5 seconds!!. >>> > Running filter query with only one condition also takes about a second. >>> > >>> > There is memory available on the box for solr to use. I have been >>> looking >>> > at the following link but was looking for some more reference that >>> would >>> > tell me why a particular query is slow. >>> > >>> > https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems >>> > >>> > Solr version:4.3.1 >>> > Index size:128 GB >>> > Heap:65 GB >>> > Index size:75 GB >>> > Memory usage:70 GB >>> > >>> > Even though there is available memory is high all is not being used ..i >>> > would expect the complete index to be in memory but it doesnt look >>> like it >>> > is. Any recommendations ?? >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Thanks >>> > Jay >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks >> Jay Potharaju >> >> > > > > -- > Thanks > Jay Potharaju > > -- Thanks Jay Potharaju
