that's what my use case has shown, but i havent done enough experimenting to know for sure. the reason the field is untokenized is because i need the full value of an authors name, example: "smith, jones", if it was tokenized and faceted it would be jones and another entry for smith.
i am running a lot of facets, 19 of them, some are facet queries and some are fields, not including the author faceting. the performance is great with all of them running. the problem is of those other facets there are only a limited number of possibilities. But with authors, there are over 800,000 separate authors in my data. the next route is to modify the index to index the authors as an integer taken from a database table of all authors, and re-attempt the author facets again on a tokenized field of integers. unfortunately it takes 4-9 days for the index to be built as it is a little over 22 GB's Lance Norskog-2 wrote: > > Are you saying that faceting is faster on a tokenized field? Is this true? > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, DHast <hastings.recurs...@gmail.com> > wrote: > ... > , removing >> that facet worked since the field was untokenizd and slow considering how >> many values tehre were. > ... > >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Slow-Phrase-Queries-tp25979999p25982493.html >> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > > > -- > Lance Norskog > goks...@gmail.com > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Slow-Phrase-Queries-tp25979999p25999252.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
