Thanks should have grep'ed the source of course (like I always seem to end up with doing haha)
/M On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar < shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some basic documentation is in the example schema.xml. Ask away if you have > specific questions. > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Marcus Herou <marcus.he...@tailsweep.com > >wrote: > > > Aha! > > > > Hmm , googling wont help me I see. any hints of usages ? > > > > /M > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar < > > shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Sorry, I'm late in this thread. > > > > > > Did you try using Trie fields (new in 1.4)? The regular date faceting > > won't > > > work out-of-the-box for trie fields I think. But you could use > > facet.query > > > to achieve the same effect. On my simple benchmarks I've found trie > > fields > > > to give a huge improvement in range searches. > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Marcus Herou < > > marcus.he...@tailsweep.com > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Hi. > > > > > > > > One of our faceting use-cases: > > > > We are creating trend graphs of how many blog posts that contains a > > > certain > > > > term and groups it by day/week/year etc. with the nice DateMathParser > > > > functions. > > > > > > > > The performance degrades really fast and consumes a lot of memory > which > > > > forces OOM from time to time > > > > We think it is due the fact that the cardinality of the field > > > publishedDate > > > > in our index is huge, almost equal to the nr of documents in the > index. > > > > > > > > We need to address that... > > > > > > > > Some questions: > > > > > > > > 1. Can a datefield have other date-formats than the default of > > yyyy-MM-dd > > > > HH:mm:ssZ ? > > > > > > > > 2. We are thinking of adding a field to the index which have the > format > > > > yyyy-MM-dd to reduce the cardinality, if that field can't be a date, > it > > > > could perhaps be a string, but the question then is if faceting can > be > > > used > > > > ? > > > > > > > > 3. Since we now already have such a huge index, is there a way to add > a > > > > field afterwards and apply it to all documents without actually > > > reindexing > > > > the whole shebang ? > > > > > > > > 4. If the field cannot be a string can we just leave out the > > > > hour/minute/second information and to reduce the cardinality and > > improve > > > > performance ? Example: 2009-01-01 00:00:00Z > > > > > > > > 5. I am afraid that we need to reindex everything to get this to work > > > > (negates Q3). We have 8 shards as of current, what would the most > > > efficient > > > > way be to reindexing the whole shebang ? Dump the entire database to > > disk > > > > (sigh), create many xml file splits and use curl in a > > > > random/hash(numServers) manner on them ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Kindly > > > > > > > > //Marcus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Marcus Herou CTO and co-founder Tailsweep AB > > > > +46702561312 > > > > marcus.he...@tailsweep.com > > > > http://www.tailsweep.com/ > > > > http://blogg.tailsweep.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Shalin Shekhar Mangar. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Marcus Herou CTO and co-founder Tailsweep AB > > +46702561312 > > marcus.he...@tailsweep.com > > http://www.tailsweep.com/ > > http://blogg.tailsweep.com/ > > > > > > -- > Regards, > Shalin Shekhar Mangar. > -- Marcus Herou CTO and co-founder Tailsweep AB +46702561312 marcus.he...@tailsweep.com http://www.tailsweep.com/ http://blogg.tailsweep.com/
