Thanks for reply. Here is the debugQuery output:
<lst name="debug">
−
<str name="rawquerystring">
account:1 AND recordeddate_dt:[NOW/DAYS-1DAYS TO NOW]
</str>
−
<str name="querystring">
account:1 AND recordeddate_dt:[NOW/DAYS-1DAYS TO NOW]
</str>
−
<str name="parsedquery">
+account:1 +recordeddate_dt:[2008-06-16T00:00:00.000Z TO
2008-06-17T17:07:57.420Z]
</str>
−
<str name="parsedquery_toString">
+account:1 +recordeddate_dt:[2008-06-16T00:00:00.000 TO 2008-06-17T17:07:57.420]
</str>
−
<lst name="explain">
−
<str
name="id=e03dbd92-3d41-4693-8b69-ac9a0d332446-atom-d52484f5-7aa8-40b3-ad6f-ba3a9071999e,internal_docid=6515410">
10.88071 = (MATCH) sum of:
10.788804 = (MATCH) weight(account:1 in 6515410), product of:
0.9957678 = queryWeight(account:1), product of:
10.834659 = idf(docFreq=348, numDocs=6515640)
0.09190578 = queryNorm
10.834659 = (MATCH) fieldWeight(account:1 in 6515410), product of:
1.0 = tf(termFreq(account:1)=1)
10.834659 = idf(docFreq=348, numDocs=6515640)
1.0 = fieldNorm(field=account, doc=6515410)
0.09190578 = (MATCH)
ConstantScoreQuery(recordeddate_dt:[2008-06-16T00:00:00.000-2008-06-17T17:07:57.420]),
product of:
1.0 = boost
0.09190578 = queryNorm
</str>
</lst>
</lst>
-----Original Message-----
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:43 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Search query optimization
Hi,
Probably because the [NOW/DAYS-7DAYS+TO+NOW] part gets rewritten as lots of OR
clauses. I think that you'll see that if you add &debugQuery=true to the URL.
Make sure your recorded_date_dt is not too granular (e.g. if you don't need
minutes, round the values to hours. If you don't need hours, round the values
to days).
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
----- Original Message ----
> From: Yongjun Rong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 11:56:06 AM
> Subject: RE: Search query optimization
>
> Hi,
> Thanks for your reply. I did some test on my test machine.
> http://stage.boomi.com:8080/solr/select/?q=account:1&rows=1000. It
> will return resultset 384 in 3ms. If I add a new AND condition as below:
> http://stage.boomi.com:8080/solr/select/?q=account:1+AND+recordeddate_
> dt :[NOW/DAYS-7DAYS+TO+NOW]&rows=1000. It will take 18236 to return 21
> resultset. If I only use the recordedate_dt condition like
> http://stage.boomi.com:8080/solr/select/?q=recordeddate_dt:[NOW/DAYS-7
> DA
> YS+TO+NOW]&rows=1000. It takes 20271 ms to get 412800 results. All the
> above URL are live, you test it.
>
> Can anyone give me some explaination why this happens if we have the
> query optimization? Thank you very much.
> Yongjun Rong
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walter Underwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:57 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Search query optimization
>
> The people working on Lucene are pretty smart, and this sort of query
> optimization is a well-known trick, so I would not worry about it.
>
> A dozen years ago at Infoseek, we checked the count of matches for
> each term in an AND, and evaluated the smallest one first.
> If any of them had zero matches, we didn't evaluate any of them.
>
> I expect that Doug Cutting and the other Lucene folk know those same
> tricks.
>
> wunder
>
> On 5/29/08 1:50 PM, "Yongjun Rong" wrote:
>
> > Hi Yonik,
> > Thanks for your quick reply. I'm very new to the lucene source code.
> > Can you give me a little more detail explaination about this.
> > Do you think it will save some memory if docnum = find_match("A") >
> > docnum = find_match("B") and put B in the front of the AND query
> > like "B AND A AND C"? How about sorting (sort=A,B,C&q=A AND B AND
> > C)? Do you think the order of conditions (A,B,C) in a query will
> > affect the performance of the query?
> > Thank you very much.
> > Yongjun
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Yonik Seeley
> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:12 PM
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Search query optimization
> >
> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Yongjun Rong
> > wrote:
> >> I have a question about how the lucene query parser. For example,
> >> I have query "A AND B AND C". Will lucene extract all documents
> >> satisfy
>
> >> condition A in memory and then filter it with condition B and C?
> >
> > No, Lucene will try and optimize this the best it can.
> >
> > It roughly goes like this..
> > docnum = find_match("A")
> > docnum = find_first_match_after(docnum, "B") docnum =
> > find_first_match_after(docnum,"C")
> > etc...
> > until the same docnum is returned for "A","B", and "C".
> >
> > See ConjunctionScorer for the gritty details.
> >
> > -Yonik
> >
> >
> >
> >> or only
> >> the documents satisfying "A AND B AND C" will be put into memory?
> >> Is there any articles discuss about how to build a optimization
> >> query to
>
> >> save memory and improve performance?
> >> Thank you very much.
> >> Yongjun Rong
> >>
