I wonder if in-memory-filesystem would help... On Sat, 19 May 2018, 01:03 Erick Erickson, <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you only return fields that are docValue=true that'll largely > eliminate the disk seeks. 30 seconds does seem kind of excessive even > with disk seeks though. > > Here'r a reference: > https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/docvalues.html > > Whenever I see anything like "...our business requirement is...", I > cringe. _Why_ is that a requirement? What is being done _for the user_ > that requires 2000 documents? There may be legitimate reasons, but > there also may be better ways to get what you need. This may very well > be an XY problem. > > For instance, if you want to take the top 2,000 docs from query X and > score just those, see: > https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/query-re-ranking.html, > specifically: ReRankQParserPlugin. > > Best, > Erick > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM, root23 <s.manuj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am working on Solr 6. Our business requirement is that we need to > return > > 2000 docs for every query we execute. > > Now normally if i execute the same set to query with start=0 to rows=10. > It > > returns very fast(event for our most complex queries in like less then 3 > > seconds). > > however the moment i add start=0 to rows =2000, the response time is > like 30 > > seconds or so. > > > > I understand that solr has to do probably disk seek to get the documents > > which might be the bottle neck in this case. > > > > Is there a way i can optimize around this knowingly that i might have to > get > > 2000 results in one go and then might have to paginate also further and > > showing 2000 results on each page. We could go to as much as 50 page. > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html >
