ight of the decimal, your maxDistErr should definitely be
> >> >>>smaller
> >> >>> than 1 -- use something like 0.5 (given you have two levels of
> >> >>>precision
> >> >>> below a full day) but to be safer (more certain it's not a problem)
> >> use
> >> >>> 0.3 -- a little less. Please report back how that goes.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ~ David
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 6/3/13 7:27 AM, "Chris Atkinson" <
>
> > chrisacky@
>
> > > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >Hi,
> >> >>> >I'm seeing really slow query times. 7-25 seconds when I run a
> simple
> >> >>> >filter
> >> >>> >query that uses my SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType field.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >My index is about 30k documents. Prior to adding the Spatial field,
> >> >>>the
> >> >>> on
> >> >>> >disk space was about 100Mb, so it's a really tiny index. Once I add
> >> >>>the
> >> >>> >spatial field (which is multi-values), the index size jumps up to
> >> 2GB.
> >> >>> (Is
> >> >>> >this normal?).
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Only about 10k documents will have any spatial data. Typically,
> they
> >> >>>will
> >> >>> >have at most 10 shapes each, but the majority are all one of two
> >> >>> >rectangles.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >This is my fieldType definition.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> > >>
> > >>> >class="solr.SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType"
> >> >>> >geo="false"
> >> >>> >worldBounds="0 0 3650 1"
> >> >>> >distErrPct="0"
> >> >>> >maxDistErr="1"
> >> >>> >units="degrees"
> >> >>> >/>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >And the field
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> > >>
> > >>> > indexed="true" stored="false" multiValued="true" />
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >I am using the field to represent approximately 10 years after
> >> January
> >> >>> 1st
> >> >>> >2013, where each day is along the X-axis. Because the availability
> >> >>>starts
> >> >>> >and ends at 2pm and 10am, I was using a decimal place when creating
> >> my
> >> >>> >shape to show that detail. (Is this approach wrong?)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >So a typical rectangle when indexed would be (minX minY maxX maxY)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Rectangle 100.6 0 120.4 1
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Is it wrong that my Y and X values are not of the same scale? Since
> >> I
> >> >>> >don't
> >> >>> >care about the Y axis at all, I just set it to be of 1 height
> >> always.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >I'm running Solr 4.3, with a small JVM of 768M (can be increased).
> >> >>>And I
> >> >>> >have 2GB RAM. (Again can be increased).
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Thanks
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> Author:
> http://www.packtpub.com/apache-solr-3-enterprise-search-server/book
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType-Spatial-Searching-tp4067778p4068216.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
t;>> On 6/3/13 7:27 AM, "Chris Atkinson" <
> chrisacky@
> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Hi,
>> >>> >I'm seeing really slow query times. 7-25 seconds when I run a simple
>> >>> >filter
>> >>&g
Hi David,
Thanks for your continued help.
I think that you have nailed it on the head for me. I'm 100% sure that I
had previously tried that query without success. I'm not sure if perhaps I
had wrong distErrPct or maxDistErr values...
It's getting late, so I'm going to call it a night (I'm on GM
So "availability" is the absence of any other document's indexed time
duration overlapping with your availability query duration. So I think
you should negate an overlaps query. The overlaps query looks like:
Intersects(-Inf start end Inf). And remember the slight buffering needed
as described o
Here is an example I have tried.
So let's assume that I want to checkIn on the 30th day, and leave on the
115th day.
My query would be:
-availability_spatial:"Intersects( 30 0 3650 115 )"
However, that wouldn't match anything. Here is an example document below so
you can see. (I've not negat
Thanks David.
Query times are really quick and my index is only 20Mb now which is about
what I would expect.
I'm having some problems figuring out what type of query I want to find
*Available* properties with this new points system.
I'm storing bookings against each document. So I have X Y coordi
Hi Chris:
Have you read: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpatialForTimeDurations
You're modeling your data sub-optimally. Full precision rectangles
(distErrPct=0) doesn't scale well and you're seeing that. You should
represent your durations as a point and it will take up a fraction of the
space (se
Also, here is a sample query, and the debugQuery output
fq={!cost=200}*:* -availability_spatial:"Intersects(182.6 0 199.4 1)"
Incase the formatting is bad, here is a raw past of the debugQuery:
http://pastie.org/pastes/872/text?key=ksjyboect4imrha0rck8sa
0 8171 true true *:* 1370259235
Hi,
I'm seeing really slow query times. 7-25 seconds when I run a simple filter
query that uses my SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType field.
My index is about 30k documents. Prior to adding the Spatial field, the on
disk space was about 100Mb, so it's a really tiny index. Once I add the
spatial f
