Re: geo/spatial search performance comparison using different methods

2013-11-06 Thread Smiley, David W.
Any guesses would be wild ones, but I'm pretty sure you'll notice it, assuming the result size isn't trivially small. Also, LatLonType will use much less memory and be more real-time search friendly (i.e. Commit warming will be faster, assuming you do warming queries as everyone should do). To be

Re: geo/spatial search performance comparison using different methods

2013-11-06 Thread T. Kuro Kurosaka
Thank you, David. I believe the field doesn't need to be multivalued. Can you give me some idea how much query-time performance gain we can expect by switching to LatLonType from Solr-2155? On 11/06/2013 09:56 AM, Smiley, David W. wrote: Hi Kuro, I don't know of any benchmarks featuring distanc

Re: geo/spatial search performance comparison using different methods

2013-11-06 Thread Smiley, David W.
Hi Kuro, I don't know of any benchmarks featuring distance-sort performance. Presumably you are using SOLR-2155 because you have multi-valued spatial fields? If so, LatLonType is not an option. SOLR-2155 sorting performance is *probably* about the same as the equivalent in Solr 4 RPT. If you ac

geo/spatial search performance comparison using different methods

2013-11-05 Thread T. Kuro Kurosaka
Are there any performance comparison results available comparing various methods to sort result by distance (not just filtering) on Solr 3 and 4? We are using Solr 3.5 with Solr-2155 patch. I am particularly interested in learning performance difference among Solr 3 LatLongType, Solr-2155 GeoH