Re: fq vs q parameter

+1 q and fq both can be cached. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/fq-vs-q-parameter-tp4071748p4071759.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: fq vs q parameter

I see that your query has boost value so this mean you need Solr to Score on each match document. One of the key difference between q and fq is thats "fq" will not have any impact on score. where as having it in q will score each document based on the Similarity Score. -- View this message i

Re: fq vs q parameter

Yes, definitely, fq parameters don't affect scoring and can be cached. Michael Della Bitta Applications Developer o: +1 646 532 3062 | c: +1 917 477 7906 appinions inc. “The Science of Influence Marketing” 18 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017 t: @appinions

Re: fq vs. q

Fergus McMenemie schrieb: While q= and fq= affect the "results" portion of a search response. The facet.query only affects the "facets" portion of a response. facet.query(s) are only used where you want a facet summary of your query based on some kind of complex expression rather than the terms

Re: fq vs. q

>Fergus McMenemie schrieb: > >> The article could explain the difference between fq= and >> facet.query= and when you should use one in preference to >> the other. > >My understanding is that while these query modifiers rely on the >same implementation (cached filters) to boost performa

Re: fq vs. q

Shalin Shekhar Mangar schrieb: On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: I think if you truncate dates to incomplete dates, you effectively also lose all the date logic. You may still apply it, but what would you take the result to mean? You can't regain precision you've decided

Re: fq vs. q

Fergus McMenemie schrieb: The article could explain the difference between fq= and facet.query= and when you should use one in preference to the other. My understanding is that while these query modifiers rely on the same implementation (cached filters) to boost performance, they s

Re: fq vs. q

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: > I want to retrieve documents (TV programs) by a particular date and > decided to convert the date to an integer, so I have: > > * 20090615 > * 20090616 > * 20090617 etc. > > I lose all date logic (timezones) for that date field, but it work

Re: fq vs. q

Ensdorf Ken schrieb: I ran into this very issue recently as we are using a "freshness" filter for our data that can be 6//12/18 months etc. I discovered that even though we were only indexing with day-level granularity, we were specifying the query by computing a date down to the second and thu

Re: fq vs. q

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Ensdorf Ken wrote: > I ran into this very issue recently as we are using a "freshness" filter > for our data that can be 6//12/18 months etc. I discovered that even though > we were only indexing with day-level granularity, we were specifying the > query by compu

RE: fq vs. q

> -Original Message- > From: Fergus McMenemie [mailto:fer...@twig.me.uk] > Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 3:41 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: fq vs. q > > >On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Michael Ludwig > wrote: > > > >> I&#

Re: fq vs. q

>On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: > >> I've summarized what I've learnt about filter queries on this page: >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FilterQueryGuidance >> > >Wow! This is great! Thanks for taking the time to write this up Michael. > >I've added a section on analysis,

Re: fq vs. q

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: > I've summarized what I've learnt about filter queries on this page: > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FilterQueryGuidance > Wow! This is great! Thanks for taking the time to write this up Michael. I've added a section on analysis, scoring a

Re: fq vs. q

Michael Ludwig schrieb: Martin Davidsson schrieb: I've tried to read up on how to decide, when writing a query, what criteria goes in the q parameter and what goes in the fq parameter, to achieve optimal performance. Is there [...] some kind of rule of thumb to help me decide how to split things

Re: fq vs. q

Fergus McMenemie schrieb: On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: A filter query is cached, which means that it is the more useful the more often it is repeated. We know how often certain queries arise, or at least have the means to collect that data - so we know what might be c

Re: fq vs. q

>On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: >> >> A filter query is cached, which means that it is the more useful the >> more often it is repeated. We know how often certain queries arise, or >> at least have the means to collect that data - so we know what might be >> candidates for

Re: fq vs. q

Shalin Shekhar Mangar schrieb: No, both filters and queries are computed on the entire index. My comment was related to the "A filter query should probably be orthogonal to the primary query..." part. I meant that both kinds of use-cases are common. Got it. Thanks :-) Michael Ludwig

Re: fq vs. q

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: > > Sorry, I don't understand. I used to think that the engine applies the > filter to the primary query result. What you're saying here sounds as if > it could also pre-filter my document collection to then apply a query to > it (which shoul

Re: fq vs. q

Shalin Shekhar Mangar schrieb: On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: A filter query should probably be orthogonal to the primary query, which means in plain English: unrelated to the primary query. To give an example, I have a field "category", which is a required field. In th

Re: fq vs. q

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Michael Ludwig wrote: > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCaching - filterCache > > A filter query is cached, which means that it is the more useful the > more often it is repeated. We know how often certain queries arise, or > at least have the means to collect th

Re: fq vs. q

Martin Davidsson schrieb: I've tried to read up on how to decide, when writing a query, what criteria goes in the q parameter and what goes in the fq parameter, to achieve optimal performance. Is there [...] some kind of rule of thumb to help me decide how to split things up when querying against

Re: fq vs. q

utch - Original Message > From: Martin Davidsson > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2009 4:15:55 PM > Subject: Re: fq vs. q > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Marc Sturlese wrote: > > > > > It's definitely not proper documentation but

Re: fq vs. q

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 1:53 AM, Marc Sturlese wrote: > > It's definitely not proper documentation but maybe can give you a hand: > > http://www.derivante.com/2009/04/27/100x-increase-in-solr-performance-and-throughput/ > > > Martin Davidsson-2 wrote: > > > > I've tried to read up on how to decide,

Re: fq vs. q

wow! that was a good read!!! On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Marc Sturlese wrote: > > It's definitely not proper documentation but maybe can give you a hand: > > http://www.derivante.com/2009/04/27/100x-increase-in-solr-performance-and-throughput/ > > > Martin Davidsson-2 wrote: > > > > I've trie

Re: fq vs. q

It's definitely not proper documentation but maybe can give you a hand: http://www.derivante.com/2009/04/27/100x-increase-in-solr-performance-and-throughput/ Martin Davidsson-2 wrote: > > I've tried to read up on how to decide, when writing a query, what > criteria goes in the q parameter and