Wait: Are you really doing leading wildcard queries? If so, that's likely the root of the problem. Unless you add ReverseWildcardFilterFactory to your analysis chain, Lucene has to enumerate your entire set of terms to find likely candidates, which takes a lot of resources. What happens if you use similar trailing wildcards? And what happens when you use simple non-wildcard queries?
Or is this just bolding that gets translated to asterisks by the mail formatting? Finally, what are typical values in this field? I'm really asking if your use of KeywordTokenizer is the best choice here. It often is, but I've seen it mis-used so I thought we should check. Best, Erick On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:08 AM, slee <sleed...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here's what I have define in my schema: > <fieldType name="c_text" class="solr.TextField" positionIncrementGap="100"> > <analyzer type="index"> > <tokenizer class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.EdgeNGramFilterFactory" minGramSize="3" > maxGramSize="50"/> > </analyzer> > <analyzer type="query"> > <tokenizer class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory"/> > <filter class="solr.ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory"/> > </analyzer> > </fieldType> > > <field name="global_Value" type="c_text" multiValued="true" indexed="true" > required="true" stored="true"/> > > This is what I send in the query (2 values): > q=global_Value:*mas+AND+global_Value:*sef&df=text&rows=5&version=2.2&echoParams=explicit&fl=global_Value > > In addition, memory is taking way over 90%, given the heap space set at 5g. > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Performance-Issue-when-querying-Multivalued-fields-SOLR-6-1-0-tp4297255p4297474.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
