Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> On Dec 27, 2007 9:45 AM, Britske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am using SolrJ to communicate with SOLR. My Solr-queries perform within
>> range (between 50 ms and 300 ms) by looking at the solr log as ouputted
>> on
>> my (windows) commandline.
>>
>> However I discovered that the following command at all times takes
>> significantly longer than the number outputted in the solr-log,
>> (sometimes
>> about 400% longer):
>
> It's probably due to stored field retrieval.
> The time in the response includes everything except the time to write
> the response (since it appears at the beginning). Writing the
> response involves reading the stored fields of documents (this was
> done to allow one to stream a large number of documents w/o having
> them all in memory).
>
> SolrJ's parsing of the response should be a relatively small constant
> cost.
>
> -Yonik
>
>
Is it normal to see this much time taken in stored field retrieval? And
where would I start to make sure that it is indeed caused by stored field
retrieval?
It seems quite much to me, although I have kind if an out of the ordinary
setup with between 2000-4000 stored fields per document. By far the largest
part is taken by various 'product-variants' and their respective prices
(indexed field) and other characteristics (stored only).
However only about 10 stored fields per document are returned for any
possible query.
Would the time taken still include iterating the non-returned fields (of
which there are many in my case), or are only the returned fields retrieved
in a map-like implementation?
Thanks,
Geert-Jan
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/big-perf-difference-between-solr-server-vs.--SOlrJ-req.process%28solrserver%29-tp14513964p14514441.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
