Hi Micheal, The FieldCache is an easier data structure and easier to create, so I also expect it to be faster. Unfortunately for TextField UnInvertedField is always used even if you have one token per document. I think overriding the multiValuedFieldCache method and return false would work.
If you're using 4.0-dev (trunk) I'd use facet.method=fcs (this parameter is only useable if multiValuedFieldCache method returns false) This is per segment faceting and the cache will only be extended for new segments. This field facet approach is better for indexes with frequent changes. I think this even faster in your case then just using the FieldCache method (which operates on a top level reader. After each commit the complete cache is invalid and has to be recreated). Otherwise I'd try facet.method=enum which is fast if you have fewer distinct facet values (num of docs doesn't influence the performance that much). The facet.method=enum option is also valid for normal TextFields, so no need to have custom code. Martijn On 3 November 2011 21:16, Michael Ryan <mr...@moreover.com> wrote: > I have some fields I facet on that are TextFields but have just a single > token. > The fieldType looks like this: > > <fieldType name="myStringFieldType" class="solr.TextField" indexed="true" > stored="false" omitNorms="true" sortMissingLast="true" > positionIncrementGap="100"> > <analyzer> > <tokenizer class="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory"/> > </analyzer> > </fieldType> > > SimpleFacets uses an UnInvertedField for these fields because > multiValuedFieldCache() returns true for TextField. I tried changing the type > for > these fields to the plain "string" type (StrField). The facets *seem* to be > generated much faster. Is it expected that FieldCache would be faster than > UnInvertedField for single-token strings like this? > > My goal is to make the facet re-generation after a commit as fast as > possible. I > would like to continue using TextField for these fields since I have a need > for > filters like LowerCaseFilterFactory, which still produces a single token. Is > it > safe to extend TextField and have multiValuedFieldCache() return false for > these > fields, so that UnInvertedField is not used? Or is there a better way to > accomplish what I'm trying to do? > > -Michael > -- Met vriendelijke groet, Martijn van Groningen
