hey thanks all for the suggestions, didn't have time to look into them
yet as we're feature-sprinting for MWC, but will report back with some
feedback over the next weeks (we will have a few more performance
sprints in March)
Best,
Matthias
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Yonik Seeley
Can we get this back ported to 3x?
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:45 AM, Matthias Käppler matth...@qype.com wrote:
hey thanks all for the suggestions, didn't have time to look into them
yet as we're feature-sprinting for MWC, but will report back with some
feedback over
/Improving-performance-for-SOLR-geo-queries-tp3719310p3737861.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
One way to speed up numeric range queries (at the cost of increased
index size) is to lower the precisionStep. You could try changing
this from 8 to 4 and then re-indexing to see how that affects your
query speed.
Hi Ryan,
I'm trying to understand how you have your data indexed so we can give
reasonable direction.
What field type are you using for your locations? Is it using the
solr spatial field types? What do you see when you look at the debug
information from debugQuery=true?
we query against a
2012/2/9 Matthias Käppler matth...@qype.com:
arr name=filter_queries
str{!bbox cache=false d=50 sfield=location_ll pt=54.1434,-0.452322}/str
/arr
arr name=parsed_filter_queries
str
WrappedQuery({!cache=false
cost=0}+location_ll_0_coordinate:[53.69373983225355 TO
54.59306016774645]
Hi Erick,
if we're not doing geo searches, we filter by location tags that we
attach to places. This is simply a hierachical regional id, which is
simple to filter for, but much less flexible. We use that on Web a
lot, but not on mobile, where we want to performance searches in
arbitrary radii
Hi Matthias-
I'm trying to understand how you have your data indexed so we can give
reasonable direction.
What field type are you using for your locations? Is it using the
solr spatial field types? What do you see when you look at the debug
information from debugQuery=true?
From my
I compared locallucene to spatial search and saw a performance
degradation, even using geohash queries, though perhaps I indexed things
wrong? Locallucene across 6 machines handles 150 queries per second fine,
but using geofilt and geohash I got lots of timeouts even when I was doing
only 50
So the obvious question is what is your
performance like without the distance filters?
Without that knowledge, we have no clue whether
the modifications you've made had any hope of
speeding up your response times
As for the docs, any improvements you'd like to
contribute would be happily
Hi,
we need to perform fast geo lookups on an index of ~13M places, and
were running into performance problems here with SOLR. We haven't done
a lot of query optimization / SOLR tuning up until now so there's
probably a lot of things we're missing. I was wondering if you could
give me some
11 matches
Mail list logo
