Non-sortable types in sample schema
The sample schema in Solr 1.2 supplies two variants of integers, longs, floats, doubles. One variant is sortable and one is not. What is the point of having both? Why would I choose the non-sorting variants? Do they store fewer bytes per record? Thanks, Lance Norskog
Re: Instant deletes without committing
On 10/11/07, BrendanD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, we have some huge performance issues with non-cached queries. So doing a > commit is very expensive for us. We have our autowarm count for our > filterCache and queryResultCache both set to 4096. But I don't think that's > near high enough. We did have it as high as 16384 before, but it took over > an hour to warm. Look in the logs... what took an hour to warm? there are separate autowarm log messages for the query and filter caches. > Some of our queries take 30-60 seconds to complete if > they're not cached. 1) Configure static warming requesst for any faceting that's common 2) Configure static warming requests for any filters (fq) that are common 3) size the filter cache larger than what's needed to hold all the facets (if that's too much memory, try the minDf param... see the wiki) 4) if indexing performance isn't an issue, lower mergeFactor to lower the average number of segments in the index (or optimize if you can) -Yonik
Re: Add fields to query when processing
On 10/11/07, Debra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How can I add a field name to query dynamicly? > Examle: If user types "in stock" replace it with "quantity:[1 TO *]" Sounds like it might be best handled by a front end GUI that creates the right request to send to Solr. -Yonik
Re: query syntax performance difference?
On 10/11/07, BrendanD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a difference in the performance for the following 2 variations on > query syntax? The first query was a response from Solr by using a single fq > parameter in the URL. The second query was a response from Solr by using > separate fq parameter in the URL, one for each field. > > > product_is_active:true AND product_status_code:complete AND > category_id:"1001570" AND attribute_id_value_en_pair:"1005758\:Elvis > Presley" > > > vs: > >product_is_active:true >product_status_code:complete >category_id:"1001570" >attribute_id_value_en_pair:"1005758\:Elvis Presley" > > > I'm just wondering if the queries get executed differently and whether it's > better to split out each individual query into it's own statement or combine > them using the AND operator. If they almost always appear together, then use an AND and put them in the same filter. If they are relatively independent, use different filters. Having solr intersect a few filters is normally very fast, so independent filters is usually fine. -Yonik
Re: Non-sortable types in sample schema
On 10/13/07, Lance Norskog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The sample schema in Solr 1.2 supplies two variants of integers, longs, > floats, doubles. One variant is sortable and one is not. > > What is the point of having both? Why would I choose the non-sorting > variants? Do they store fewer bytes per record? They both "sort" (because sorting uses the un-inverted FieldCache entry) ... but they don't both do range queries correctly (which relies on term index oder). One might choose "integer" for reading a legacy lucene index, or because they only need it for sorting or for function queries and the FieldCache entry is smaller. -Yonik
Re: dismax downweighting
Negative boosts? Try 0.0 to 0.99 for the negative effect. Otis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share - Original Message From: Matthew Runo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:11:52 PM Subject: Re: dismax downweighting would a dismax boost that's negative work? ie.. name^-1 and description^-1 ? ++ | Matthew Runo | Zappos Development | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 702-943-7833 ++ On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Brian Whitman wrote: > i have a dismax query where I want to boost appearance of the query > terms in certain fields but "downboost" appearance in others. > > The practical use is a field containing a lot of descriptive text > and then a product name field where products might be named after a > descriptive word. Consider an electric toothbrush called "The Fast > And Thorough Toothbrush" -- if a user searches for fast toothbrush > I'd like to down-weight that particular model's advantage. The name > of the product might also be in the descriptive text. > > I tried > > > -name description > > > but solr didn't like that. > > Any better ideas? > > > -- > http://variogr.am/ > > >
