: > 1) adding something like: q=cat_id:xxx&fq=geo_id=yyyy would boost : > performance? : : : For the n > 1 query, yes, adding filters should improve performance : assuming it is selective enough. The tradeoff is memory.
You might even find that something like this is faster... q=*:*&fq=cat_id:xxxx&fq=geo_id:yyyy ...but it can vary based on circumstances (depends a lot on how many unique xxxx and yyyy values you have, and how big each of those sets are, and how big you make your filterCache) : > 2) we do find problems when we ask for a page=large offset! ie: : > q=cat_id:xxx and geo_id:yyy&start=544545 : > (note that we limit docs to 50 max per resultset). : > When start is 500 or more, Qtime is >=5 seconds.... while the avg qtime is : > <100 ms FWIW: limiting the number of rows per request to 50, but not limiting the start doesn't make much sense -- the same amount of work is needed to handle start=0&rows=5050 and start=5000&rows=50. There are very few use cases for allowing people to iterate through all the rows that also require sorting. -Hoss
