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 runni
Are you saying that faceting is faster on a tokenized field? Is this true?
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:02 PM, DHast 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.c
ah, it turns out it was one of my 6 facets, the author. in the data pool
tehre are over 1.9 million documents, and about 800,000 authors, removing
that facet worked since the field was untokenizd and slow considering how
many values tehre were. Solr is definitely faster, and as fast and or
faste
Solr just uses a stock lucene phrase query.
What version of Lucene and Solr are you comparing?
Do the queries match the same number of documents?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM, DHast wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I have recently installed Solr as an alternative to
You might try a couple tests in the Solr admin interface to make sure the
query is being processed the same in both Solr and raw lucene.
1) use the analysis panel to determine if the Solr filter chain is doing
something unexpected compared to your lucene filter chain
2) try running a debug query
