I’m getting a raw profiling report outside the context of CQ and trying to do
some analysis on it (I’m running the same operation on several hundred input
objects and collecting the profiling for each instance in order to try to get
better trend data).
I’ve identified one expression that takes the bulk of the processing time but
the profiling details aren’t adding up so I’m wondering what I’m missing.
Here’s the expression that is reported in the histogram:
cts:search(fn:collection()/MatchingQuery,
cts:and-query((func:func-returns-boolean($some-param),
cts:collection-query("collection-name"),
cts:reverse-query($node))), "unfiltered")
The intent of this search is to find MatchingQuery documents that match the
node in $node.
The deep time for this is PT0.023642S and the shallow time is PT0.023289S,
which is what I would expect (shallow and deep almost the same).
So the question is, which of these terms is contributing to this time?
If I search for histogram entries for the individual terms I get a deep time of
“0.000342” for the cts:and-query, which is obviously a small fraction of total
time of 0.023 seconds.
Does that mean that the “fn:collection()/MatchingQuery” term accounts for the
remaining time (the bulk of the 0.23 seconds)? If not, what accounts for the
remaining time?
I’m also capturing the query meters and the only cache misses I’m seeing are
value cache misses (17 misses, 1 hit). I’m not sure what aspect of this query
(if any) would hit the value cache.
So my question: what are these times telling me about this particular search
expression?
Thanks,
Eliot
--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
_______________________________________________
General mailing list
[email protected]
Manage your subscription at:
http://developer.marklogic.com/mailman/listinfo/general
