Re: SOLRJ: Is there a way to obtain a quick count of total results for a query

2012-05-04 Thread Li Li
don't score by relevance and score by document id may speed it up a little?
I haven't done any test of this. may be u can give it a try. because
scoring will consume
some cpu time. you just want to match and get total count

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:58 PM, vybe3142  wrote:
> I can achieve this by building a query with start and rows = 0, and using
> .getResults().getNumFound().
>
> Are there any more efficient approaches to this?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLRJ-Is-there-a-way-to-obtain-a-quick-count-of-total-results-for-a-query-tp3955322.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Re: SOLRJ: Is there a way to obtain a quick count of total results for a query

2012-05-04 Thread vybe3142
Fair enough, Thanks. Just wanted to confirm that there wasn't a better way of
accomplishing this.

--
View this message in context: 
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLRJ-Is-there-a-way-to-obtain-a-quick-count-of-total-results-for-a-query-tp3955322p3963295.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Re: SOLRJ: Is there a way to obtain a quick count of total results for a query

2012-05-03 Thread Erick Erickson
That's the standard way, it's actually pretty efficient. Why is this
a concern? Just the verbosity of the getRestults()?

Best
Erick

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:58 AM, vybe3142  wrote:
> I can achieve this by building a query with start and rows = 0, and using
> .getResults().getNumFound().
>
> Are there any more efficient approaches to this?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLRJ-Is-there-a-way-to-obtain-a-quick-count-of-total-results-for-a-query-tp3955322.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


SOLRJ: Is there a way to obtain a quick count of total results for a query

2012-05-02 Thread vybe3142
I can achieve this by building a query with start and rows = 0, and using
.getResults().getNumFound().

Are there any more efficient approaches to this?

Thanks

--
View this message in context: 
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLRJ-Is-there-a-way-to-obtain-a-quick-count-of-total-results-for-a-query-tp3955322.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.