as a related question: is here a way to inspect the queries currently in the filtercache?
Britske wrote: > > Yeah i meant filter-cache, thanks. > It seemed that the particular field (cityname) was using a > keywordtokenizer (which doens't show at the front) which is why i missed > it i guess :-S. This means the term field is tokenized so > termEnums-apporach is used. This results in about 10.000 inserts on > facet.field=cityname on a cold searcher, which matches the nr of different > terms in that field. At least that explains that. > > So if I understand correctly if I use that same field in a FQ-param, say > fq=cityname:amsterdam and amsterdam is a term of field cityname, than the > FQ-query can utilize the cached 'query': cityname:amsterdam which is > already put into the filtercache by the query facet.field=cityname right? > > The thing that I still don't get is why my filtercache starts to have > evictions although it's size is 16.000+. This shouldn't be happing given > that: > I currently only use faceting on cityname and use this field on FQ as > well, as already said (which adds +/- 10000 items to the filtercache, > given that faceting and fq share cached items). > Moreover i use FQ on about 2500 different fields (named _ddp*), but only > check to see if a value exists by doing for example: fq=_ddp1234:[* TO *]. > I sometimes add them together like so: fq=_ddp1234:[* TO *] > &fq=_ddp2345:[* TO *]. But never like so: fq=_ddp1234:[* TO *] > +_ddp2345:[* TO *]. Which means each _ddp*-field is only added once to the > filtercache. > > Wouldn't this mean that at a maximum I can only have 12500 items in the > filtercache? > Still my filtercache starts to have evictions although it's size is > 16.000+. > > What am I missing here? > Geert-Jan > > > hossman wrote: >> >> >> : ..fq=country:france >> : >> : do these queries share cached items in the fieldcache? (in this >> example: >> : country:france) or do they somehow live as seperate entities in the >> cache? >> : The latter would explain my fieldcache having evictions at the moment. >> >> FieldCache can't have evicitions. it's a really low level "cache" where >> the key is field name and the value is an array containing a value for >> every document (you cna think of it as an inverted-inverted-index) that >> Lucene maintains directly. items are never removed they just get garbage >> collected when the IndexReader is no longer used. It's primarily for >> sorting, but the SimpleFacets code also leveragies it for facets in some >> cases -- Solr has no way of showing you what's in the FieldCache, because >> Lucene doesn't expose any inspection APIs to query it (it's a heisenberg >> cache .. once you ask if something is in it, it's in it) >> >> are you refering to the "filterCache" ? >> >> filterCache contains records whose key is a "query" and whose value is a >> DocSet (an unordered collection of all docs matching a query) ... it's >> used whenever you use an "fq" param, for faceting on some fields (when >> the >> TermEnum method is used, a filterCache entry is added for each term >> tested), and even for some sorted queries if the >> <useFilterForSortedQuery/> config option is set to true. >> >> the easiest way to know whether your faceting is using the FieldCache is >> to start your server cold (no newSearcher warming) and then send it a >> simple query with a single facet.field. depending on the query, you >> might >> get 0 or 1 entries in the filterCache if SimpleFacets is using the >> FieldCache -- but if it's using the TermEnums, and generating a DocSet >> per >> term, you'llsee *lots* of inserts into the filterCache. >> >> >> >> -Hoss >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/quickie%3A-do-facetfields-use-same-cached-items-in-field-cache-as-FQ-param--tf4609795.html#a13170530 Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
