Hey Shalin, Thanks for the help. The particular attraction of filter queries is that they are cached separately, and our application takes advantage of that fact, since we often employ several filters in one search - while the combinations of filters are numerous, the individual filters comprise a small enough set that they can be effectively cached.
We actually do have a choice about whether to put something in :q - I could always just arbitrarily pick one filter and put it in the :q parameter instead of an :fq parameter. That's a good point about the query result cache and '*:*' though - thanks. Mat On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 15:12, Shalin Shekhar Mangar <shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Mat Brown <m...@patch.com> wrote: > >> Thanks, Shalin. The "*:*" sounds good - so that'll definitely have no >> effect on query performance? >> >> > All query results are added to the query result cache so any cost is > one-time only (until a commit happens or eviction happens). In any case, if > you do not have anything to put in the query field, you have no choice :) > > >> What I meant was, I'd like all of the queries that I'm using to >> restrict search results to be cached (as filter queries are) - which >> is why I don't have anything I'd particularly like to put into the :q >> parameter. >> >> > OK, thanks for clearing that up. Note that filters and queries are cached > separately. A good article on this is on the wiki: > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FilterQueryGuidance > > -- > Regards, > Shalin Shekhar Mangar. >
