We're seeing slow response time when we apply datefilter. A search that
takes 7 msec with no datefilter takes 368 msec when I filter on the last
fifteen days, and 632 msec on the last 30 days.
Initially we saved doing document.add(Field.Keyword("dtstamp", dtstamp));
and then change to doing
document.add(Field.Keyword("dtstamp", DateField.dateToString(dtstamp)));
where dtstamp is a java.util.Date
Both of the above lines of code are equivalent. This is where having open-source is handy :)
public static final Field Keyword(String name, Date value) {
return new Field(name, DateField.dateToString(value), true, true, false);
}
We search doing the following:
days_ago_value = Long.parseLong(days); //could throw NumberFormatException
days_ago_value = new java.util.Date().getTime() - (days_ago_value * 86400000L);
hits = indexSearcher.search(query, DateFilter.After("dtstamp", days_ago_value));
DateFilter itself is walking all the terms in the range you provide before executing the query. If you have a lot of terms in that range, you can see that there is obviously some cycles spinning to do the work needed.
Not only is the query slow, but it seems to be slower the more results it returns.
Any suggestions?
If this date range is pretty static, you could (in Lucene's CVS codebase) wrap the DateFilter with a CachingWrappingFilter. Or you could construct a long-lived instance of an equivalent QueryFilter and reuse it across multiple queries. You would likely see dramatic differences using either of these approaches.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
