Ok. Just to give some feedback. I reindexed with less precision as you told me and it's working really fast. Thanks for your help!
Jonathan On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > : Looking into the code it seems like a Lucene problem, more than Solr. It > is > : in the RangeQuery and RangeFilter classes. The problem with changing > this to > : have a sorted index and than binary search is that you have to sort it, > : which is slow. Unless we can store the ordered index somewhere and reuse > it, > : it will be even slower than now. And if we store it, we will have to > face > : the problem with updating ordered index with new terms. > > FWIW: Lucene Term enumeration is already indexed, it's just not a binary > search tree (the details escape me at the moment, but there there is an > interval value of N somewhere in the code, and every Nth Term is loaded > into memory so a TermEnum.seek can skip ahead N terms at a time). > > But the number of unique terms can be a bottle neck ... rounding to the > level of precision you absolutely need can save you in these cases by > reducing the number of unique terms. > > > > > -Hoss > >
