> > >> What about your sharding? Is it the same as with solr? > > > > I have 5 shards without replication (one node). Would it be faster if it > > were only one shard? > > Same with solr? >
I didn't use sharding with solr. Does disabling sharding improve the performance significantly, at least if you only plan to use it on one node? > >> Did you identify some particulier queries being slow? > > > > there is a general trend of all queries beeing slower, not only some > > outliers. > > I mean if you can isolate a single query with a huge performance > difference, it would be easier to test/tweak it. > It would demand some work to isolate these queries. However, I managed to find out the reason why the query last much longer: the number of queried fields increased from 9 (solr) to 25 (es). I thought this had no impact: the number of tokens in the index got not changed but is now more distributed in different fields. In other words: it turned out that the number of fields you query has a greater impact on performance than the number of tokens stored in a indexed field. So I know what to do and try union fields where possible. Thanks for your help! Anyway, cross_field query is still a little bit slower than solr's edismax, but given the higher complexity this is comprehensible -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/730c3819-65f8-45ac-ba7c-d4353af2eded%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
