Well, define "slow". Conceptually a large OR clause is created that contains all the terms that start with the indicated text. (actually a PrefixQuery should be formed).
That said, I'd expect hello* to be reasonably fast as not many terms _probably_ start with 'hello'. Not the same at all for, say, h*. You might review: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/UsingMailingLists, you're not really providing much information to go on here. What is the result of adding &debug=query? Particularly it would be useful to see the parsed query. Are all such queries slow? What happens if you submit hel* followed by hello*, the first one will bring the underlying index structures into memory, for all we know this could simply be an autowarming issue. Are you indexing at the same time? Do you have a short autocommit interval? What version of Solr? Details matter. Best, Erick On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Sundeep T <sundeep....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Erick. > > I initially asked this question regarding leading wildcards. This was a > typo, and what I meant was trailing wild card queries were slow. So queries > like text:'hello*" are slow. We were expecting since the string field is > already indexed, the searches should be fast, but that seems to be not the > case > > Thanks > Sundeep > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> You already asked that question and got several answers, did you not >> see them? If you did see them, what is unclear? >> >> Best, >> Erick >> >> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Sundeep T <sundeep....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > We have several indexed string fields which is not tokenized and does not >> > have docValues enabled. >> > >> > When we do trailing wildcard searches on these fields they are running >> very >> > slow. We were thinking that since this field is indexed, such queries >> > should be running pretty quickly. We are using Solr 6.6.1. Anyone has >> ideas >> > on why these queries are running slow and if there are any ways to speed >> > them up? >> > >> > Thanks >> > Sundeep >>
