[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9142?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15455287#comment-15455287
]
Yonik Seeley commented on SOLR-9142:
------------------------------------
bq. Do you mean this?: Code that needs a fast set would be changed to work on a
Bits interface,
Yep... there are already too many places in the code that need/assume ordered
sets.
A utility method DocSetUtil.getBits(DocSet set)? could just unwrap BitDocSet if
needed since OpenBitSet (err... FixedBitSet these days) implements Bits, or use
a hash for SortedIntDocSet.
bq. but the method-selection code doesn't conveniently have access to the
Terms/DocValues to know the stats
Yeah... we're going to have to figure out the best way to handle that.
Oh, and as far as hashing, it will also make sense when using uif as well...
I'll open a separate issue for that.
> JSON Facet, add hash table method for terms
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-9142
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9142
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Facet Module
> Reporter: Varun Thacker
> Assignee: David Smiley
> Fix For: 6.3
>
> Attachments: SOLR_9412_FacetFieldProcessorByHashDV.patch,
> SOLR_9412_FacetFieldProcessorByHashDV.patch,
> SOLR_9412_FacetFieldProcessorByHashDV.patch,
> SOLR_9412_FacetFieldProcessorByHashDV.patch,
> SOLR_9412_FacetFieldProcessorByHashDV.patch
>
>
> I indexed a dataset of 2M docs
> {{top_facet_s}} has a cardinality of 1000 which is the top level facet.
> For nested facets it has two fields {{sub_facet_unique_s}} and
> {{sub_facet_unique_td}} which are string and double and have cardinality 2M
> The nested query for the double field returns in the 1s mark always. The
> nested query for the string field takes roughly 10s to execute.
> {code:title=nested string facet|borderStyle=solid}
> q=*:*&rows=0&json.facet=
> {
> "top_facet_s": {
> "type": "terms",
> "limit": -1,
> "field": "top_facet_s",
> "mincount": 1,
> "excludeTags": "ANY",
> "facet": {
> "sub_facet_unique_s": {
> "type": "terms",
> "limit": 1,
> "field": "sub_facet_unique_s",
> "mincount": 1
> }
> }
> }
> }
> {code}
> {code:title=nested double facet|borderStyle=solid}
> q=*:*&rows=0&json.facet=
> {
> "top_facet_s": {
> "type": "terms",
> "limit": -1,
> "field": "top_facet_s",
> "mincount": 1,
> "excludeTags": "ANY",
> "facet": {
> "sub_facet_unique_s": {
> "type": "terms",
> "limit": 1,
> "field": "sub_facet_unique_td",
> "mincount": 1
> }
> }
> }
> }
> {code}
> I tried to dig deeper to understand why are string nested faceting that slow
> compared to numeric field
> Since the top facet has a cardinality of 1000 we have to calculate sub facets
> on each of them. Now the key difference was in the implementation of the two .
> For the string field, In {{FacetField#getFieldCacheCounts}} we call
> {{createCollectAcc}} with nDocs=0 and numSlots=2M . This then initializes an
> array of 2M. So we create a 2M array 1000 times for this one query which from
> what I understand makes this query slow.
> For numeric fields {{FacetFieldProcessorNumeric#calcFacets}} uses a
> CountSlotAcc which doesn't assign a huge array. In this query it calls
> {{createCollectAcc}} with numDocs=2k and numSlots=1024 .
> In string faceting, we create the 2M array because the cardinality is 2M and
> we use the array position as the ordinal and value as the count. If we could
> improve on this it would speed things up significantly? For sub-facets we
> know the maximum cardinality can be at max the top level bucket count.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
