Yes, those terms are important in calculating the relevancy scores so they are not in the filter queries. I was hoping if I can cache everything about a field, any combinations on the field values will be read from cache. Then it does not matter if I query for field1:(02 04 05), or field1:(01 02) or field1:03 the response time is equally quick. Is there anyway to achieve that? Yeah, the range queries are also a bottleneck too, I will give the TrieRange fields a try. Thanks for you advice.
Best Regards, Shi Quan He On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Yonik Seeley <yo...@lucidimagination.com>wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Larry He <shiqua...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have about 100 different fields and 1 million documents we indexed > with > > Solr. Many of the fields are multi-valued, and some are numbers (for > range > > search). We are expecting to perform solr queries contains over 30 terms > > and often the response time is well over a second. I found that the > caches > > in Solr such as QueryResultCache and FilterCache does not help us much in > > this case as most of the queries have combinations of terms that are > > unlikely to repeat. An example of our query would look like: > > > > field1:(02 04 05) field2:(01 02 03) field2:(01 02 03) ... > > > > My question is how can we improve performance of these queries? > > filters are independently cached... but they are currently only "AND" > filters, so you could only split it up like so: > > fq=field1:(02 04 05)&fq=field2:(01 02 03)&fq=field2:(01 02 03) > But that won't help unless any of the individual fq params are > repeated across different queries. > > Range search can also be sped up a lot via the use of the new > TrieRange fields, or via the frange (function range query) > capabilities in Solr 1.4.... it's not clear if the range queries or > the term queries are your current bottleneck. > > If the range queries aren't your bottleneck and separate filters don't > work, then a query type could be developed that would help your > situation by caching matches on term queries. Are relevancy scores > important for the clauses like field1:(02 04 05), or do you sort by > some other criteria? > > -Yonik > http://www.lucidimagination.com >
