a filter, so if you pay this cost over and over, would it not be
better to just use ^=?
Have a good day,
Esther
From:
Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com
To:
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date:
25/06/2015 03:27 PM
Subject:
Re: fq versus q
Side note on dates and fqs. If you're using NOW
use ^=?
Best regards,
Esther
From:
Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com
To:
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date:
25/06/2015 02:38 AM
Subject:
Re: fq versus q
Tell us a bit more about your test setup. 1 or 2 tests
don't mean much. For instance, if the fq query has to
load the low-level caches
:
Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com
To:
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date:
25/06/2015 02:38 AM
Subject:
Re: fq versus q
Tell us a bit more about your test setup. 1 or 2 tests
don't mean much. For instance, if the fq query has to
load the low-level caches from disk then the q-only
To:
solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date:
25/06/2015 02:38 AM
Subject:
Re: fq versus q
Tell us a bit more about your test setup. 1 or 2 tests
don't mean much. For instance, if the fq query has to
load the low-level caches from disk then the q-only
query is run and doesn't that could skew
@lucene.apache.org solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc:
Arnon Yogev/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL, Shai Erera/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
Date:
25/06/2015 02:50 AM
Subject:
Re: fq versus q
Why is cache=false set for the filter?
Grouping uses a 2 pass algorithm by default, so that means that the
filter will need to be generated
:
fq versus q
Hi,
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
than fq. The question is why?
An example1:
q=maildate:{DATE1 to DATE2} COMPARED TO fq
Hi,
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
than fq. The question is why?
An example1:
q=maildate:{DATE1 to DATE2} COMPARED TO fq={!cache=false
, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Shawn Heisey apa...@elyograg.org
wrote:
On 6/24/2015 5:28 AM, Esther Goldbraich wrote:
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q
On 6/24/2015 5:28 AM, Esther Goldbraich wrote:
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
than fq. The question is why?
An example1:
q=maildate
. The rationale behind
using a non-cached 'fq' was just that.
Shai
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Shawn Heisey apa...@elyograg.org
wrote:
On 6/24/2015 5:28 AM, Esther Goldbraich wrote:
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters
at 7:28 AM, Esther Goldbraich
estherg...@il.ibm.com wrote:
Hi,
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
than fq. The question is why?
An example1:
q
:
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x
better
than fq. The question is why?
An example1:
q=maildate:{DATE1 to DATE2} COMPARED TO
fq
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
than fq. The question is why?
Are you sure that the query result cache is disabled ?
2015-06-24 13:28 GMT+02:00 Esther Goldbraich estherg...@il.ibm.com:
Hi,
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries
AM, Esther Goldbraich wrote:
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x better
than fq. The question is why?
An example1:
q=maildate:{DATE1 to DATE2
Goldbraich wrote:
We are comparing the performance of fq versus q for queries that are
actually filters and should not be cached.
In part of queries we see strange behavior where q performs 5-10x
better
than fq. The question is why?
An example1:
q=maildate:{DATE1 to DATE2
15 matches
Mail list logo
