Agreed, Solr uses random access bitsets everywhere so I'm thinking
this could be an improvement or at least a great option to enable and
try out. I'll update LUCENE-1536 so we can benchmark.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Michael
McCandless wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Grant Ingerso
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> I am wondering... are new SOLR filtering features faster than standard
>> Lucene queries like
>> {query} AND {filter}???
>
> The new filtering features in Solr are just doing what Lucene started doing
> in 2.4 and that is using skipping wh
On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Fuad Efendi wrote:
I am wondering... are new SOLR filtering features faster than standard
Lucene queries like
{query} AND {filter}???
The new filtering features in Solr are just doing what Lucene started
doing in 2.4 and that is using skipping when possible. I
Fuad -
http://www.lucidimagination.com/blog/2009/05/27/filtered-query-performance-increases-for-solr-14/
Use fq=filter instead, generally speaking.
Erik
On Aug 26, 2009, at 10:24 PM, Fuad Efendi wrote:
I am wondering... are new SOLR filtering features faster than standard
Lucene que
I am wondering... are new SOLR filtering features faster than standard
Lucene queries like
{query} AND {filter}???
Why can't we improve Lucene then?
Fuad
P.S.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1169
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1179
-Original Message-
