Json Nested faceting on string,string,double fields. Facet function 'sum' is applied on double field
Without docValue response for the same query 1) First response without cache 765 Ms 2) second response with cache 28 Ms 3) third response with cache 78 Ms 4) fourth response with cache 94 Ms With docValue response for the same query 1) first response without cache 78 Ms 2) response is always less than 20 Ms with cache Version 5.2.1 > On 09-Aug-2015, at 10:39 am, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Interesting... what type of field was this? (string or numeric? single > or multi-valued?) > > Without docValues, the first request would be slow (due to building > the in-memory field cache entry), but after that it should be fast. > > -Yonik > > >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Nagasharath <sharathrayap...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> I Have tested with docValue and without docValue on the test indexes with a >> json nested faceting query. >> >> Have noticed performance boot with the docValue.The response time with >> Cached items and without cached items is good. >> >> I have noticed that the response time on the cached items of the index >> without docValue is not always constant (28 Ms, 78 Ms, 94 Ms). Where as with >> docValue is always constant( always <20 Ms) >> >> Decided to go with docValue. >> >>> On 08-Aug-2015, at 10:44 pm, Erick Erickson <erickerick...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Have you seen: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/DocValues? >>> >>> What kind of speedup? How often are you committing? Is there a speed >>> difference >>> after a while or on the first few queries? >>> >>> Details matter a lot for questions like this. >>> >>> Best, >>> Erick >>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Nagasharath <sharathrayap...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> Good >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On 08-Aug-2015, at 8:12 pm, Aman Tandon <amantandon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I am seeing a significant difference in the query time after using >>>>>> docValue >>>>> >>>>> what kind of difference, is it good or bad? >>>>> >>>>> With Regards >>>>> Aman Tandon >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Nagasharath <sharathrayap...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I am seeing a significant difference in the query time after using >>>>>> docValue. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am curious to know what's happening with 'docValue' included in the >>>>>> schema >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 07-Aug-2015, at 4:31 pm, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/7/2015 11:47 AM, naga sharathrayapati wrote: >>>>>>>> JVM-Memory has gone up from 3% to 17.1% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In my experience, a healthy Java application (after the heap size has >>>>>>> stabilized) will have a heap utilization graph where the low points are >>>>>>> between 50 and 75 percent. If the low points in heap utilization are >>>>>>> consistently below 25 percent, you would be better off reducing the heap >>>>>>> size and allowing the OS to use that memory instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want to track heap utilization, JVM-Memory in the Solr dashboard >>>>>>> is a very poor tool. Use tools like visualvm or jconsole. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems#Java_Heap >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I need to add what I said about very low heap utilization to that wiki >>>>>> page. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Shawn >>>>>>
