Rogalon wrote > Am 16. April 2013 um 14:46 schrieb "Yonik Seeley-4 [via Lucene]" <
> ml-node+s472066n4056299h21@.nabble > >: > >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Rogalon <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > I am using pretty complex function queries to completely customize (not >> only >> > boost) the score of my result documents that are retrieved from an >> index of >> > approx 10e7 documents. To get to an acceptable level of performance I >> > combine my query with filters in the following way (very short >> example): >> > >> > >> q=_val_:"sum(termfreq(fieldname,`word`),termfreq(fieldname2,`word2`))"&fq=fieldname:`word`&fq=fieldname2:`word2` >> > >> > Although I always have (because of the filter) approx 50.000 docs in >> the >> > result set, the search times vary (depending on the actual query) >> between >> > 100ms and 6000ms. >> > >> > My understanding was that the scoring function is only applied to the >> result >> > set from the filters. >> >> That should be the case. >> >> > But based on what I am seeing it seems that a lot more >> > documents are actually put through the _val_ function. >> >> How did you verify this? > > Thanks for taking a look at my problem. > > For now - I verified just by taking a look at the query times and doing > some simple experiments. > > If I am not using the function query at all (q=*:*&fq=...), the approx. > 50.000 results from the filters are always returned within 200-300ms. This > is pretty stable. If I have a (test) index of 50.000 documents (instead of > the the 10e7 index) only and I pass every document through the _val_ query > (without any filters), this takes about 150ms which in my case would be > ok. > > Applying no filters to the function query on the 10e7 index leads to > search times at about 6000ms which is too much. > > But if I use the filters as stated above I get returned 50.000 documents > but the query times suddenly start to vary between 100ms and 6000ms. Some > of my filters might actually be on stop words which appear in every other > document in the index but that seems to really hurt performance only if > the function query is used. > > Greetings, Nico >> >> >> -Yonik >> http://lucidworks.com >> >> >> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion >> below: >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Function-Query-performance-in-combination-with-filters-tp4056283p4056299.html >> >> To unsubscribe from Function Query performance in combination with >> filters, click here. >> NAML >> Any idea what else I could try to figure out the issue? Thanks in advance ;-) -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Function-Query-performance-in-combination-with-filters-tp4056283p4056609.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
