Searching for negative numbers very slow
: This was my first thought but -1 is relatively common but we have other
: numbers just as common.
i assume that when you say that you mean "...we have other numbers
(that are not negative) just as common, (but searching for them is much
faste
: This was my first thought but -1 is relatively common but we have other
: numbers just as common.
i assume that when you say that you mean "...we have other numbers
(that are not negative) just as common, (but searching for them is much
faster)" ?
I don't have any insight into why your neg
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:29:18PM -0500, Yonik Seeley said:
> That's odd - there should be nothing special about negative numbers.
> Here are a couple of ideas:
> - if you have a really big index and querying by a negative number
> is much more rare, it could just be that part of the index wasn'
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Simon Wistow wrote:
> If I do
>
> qt=dismax
> fq=uid:1
>
> (or any other positive number) then queries are as quick as normal - in
> the 20ms range.
>
> However, any of
>
> fq=uid:\-1
>
> or
>
> fq=uid:[* TO -1]
>
> or
>
> fq=uid:[-1 to -1]
>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:32:26PM +, me said:
> If I do
>
> qt=dismax
> fq=uid:1
>
> (or any other positive number) then queries are as quick as normal - in
> the 20ms range.
For what it's worth uid is a TrieIntField with precisionStep=0,
omitNorms=true, positionIncrementGap=0
If I do
qt=dismax
fq=uid:1
(or any other positive number) then queries are as quick as normal - in
the 20ms range.
However, any of
fq=uid:\-1
or
fq=uid:[* TO -1]
or
fq=uid:[-1 to -1]
or
fq=-uid:[0 TO *]
then queries are incredibly slow - in the 9 *s
