Re: Slow date filter query

There are about 30 Million Docs and the index size is 75 GB. Using a full timestamp value when querying and not using NOW. The fq queries covers almost all the docs(20+ million) in the index. Thanks On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > Oops, fat fingers. > > see: > searchhu

Re: Slow date filter query

Oops, fat fingers. see: searchhub.org/2012/02/23/date-math-now-and-filter-queries/ If you're not re-using the _same_ filter query, you'll be better off using fq={!cache=false}range_query Best, Erick On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > That does seem long, but you haven't p

Re: Slow date filter query

That does seem long, but you haven't provided many details about the fields. Are there 100 docs in your index? 100M docs? 500M docs? Are you using NOW in appropriately? See: On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jay Potharaju wrote: > Hi, > I am running filter query(range query) on date fields(high c

Slow date filter query

Hi, I am running filter query(range query) on date fields(high cardinality) and the performance is really bad ...it takes about 2-5 seconds for it to come back with response. I am rebuilding the index to have docvalues & tdates instead of "date" field. But not sure if that will alleviate the proble

Re: Date filter query

Hi, all Thanks for your responses. I'd tried [NOW/DAY-30DAY+TO+NOW/DAY-1DAY-1SECOND] and seems it works fine for me. Thanks a lot! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3766139.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archi

Re: Date filter query

erver restart between both tests? >>>> I tried to run these test one after another, I'd rebooted my tomcats, I'd >>>> run second test first and vice versa. >>>> >>>>>> Second: Could you show us your solrconfig to make sure that your caches >>>>>> are configured well? >>>> I'm using solrconfig from solr/example directory. The difference is that I >>>> only commented out unused components. Filter, document and query result >>>> cache is default. But they are default for both tests, can it affect on >>>> results? >>>> >>>>>> Furthermore: Take into consideration, whether you really need 500 rows >>>>>> per request. >>>> Yes, I need 500 rows. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3764941.html >>>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>

Re: Date filter query

>>> >>>>> Second: Could you show us your solrconfig to make sure that your caches >>>>> are configured well? >>> I'm using solrconfig from solr/example directory. The difference is that I >>> only commented out unused components. Filter, document and query result >>> cache is default. But they are default for both tests, can it affect on >>> results? >>> >>>>> Furthermore: Take into consideration, whether you really need 500 rows >>>>> per request. >>> Yes, I need 500 rows. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3764941.html >>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >

Re: Date filter query

difference is that I >> only commented out unused components. Filter, document and query result >> cache is default. But they are default for both tests, can it affect on >> results? >> >>>> Furthermore: Take into consideration, whether you really need 500 rows >>>> per request. >> Yes, I need 500 rows. >> >> Thanks >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3764941.html >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>

Re: Date filter query

ilter, document and query result > cache is default. But they are default for both tests, can it affect on > results? > >>> Furthermore: Take into consideration, whether you really need 500 rows >>> per request. > Yes, I need 500 rows. > > Thanks > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3764941.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Re: Date filter query

sage in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3764941.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Date filter query

es cancelled: 94 > Max QTime is: 45203 ms > Avg QTime is: 39195.2 ms > Min QTime is: ms > > I repeated this test more times - results seems equal. Is it true, that > [2012-01-23T00:00:00Z+TO+2012-02-21T23:59:59Z] is faster than > [NOW-30DAY+TO+NOW] > ? > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3764781.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Re: Date filter query

: 4 Max QTime is: 22728 ms Avg QTime is: 6681.31 ms Min QTime is: ms *** Date:[NOW-30DAY+TO+NOW] *** Queries processed: 20 Queries cancelled: 94 Max QTime is: 45203 ms Avg QTime is: 39195.2 ms Min QTime is: ms I repeated this test more times - results seems equal. Is it true, that [2012-01-23T00:

Re: Date filter query

gt; > > Which of these queries will be faster by QTime at Solr 3.5? Thanks! > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3764349.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Date filter query

by QTime at Solr 3.5? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Date-filter-query-tp3764349p3764349.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.