Thanks! I don't think I can use an unreleased version of solr even is it's stable enough (crazy infrastructure guys) but I might be able to apply the 2 patches mentioned in the link you sent. I will try it in my local copy of solr and see if it improves and let you know. Thanks!
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Uri Boness <ubon...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I recall correctly, in solr 1.3 there was an issue where filters didn't > really behaved as they should have. Basically, if you had a query and > filters defined, the query would have executed normally and only after that > the filter would be applied. AFAIK this is fixed in 1.4 where now the > documents which are defined by the filters are skipped during the query > execution. > > Uri > > > Jonathan Ariel wrote: > >> Hi all! >> I'm trying to measure the query response time when using just a query and >> when using some filter queries. From what I read and understand adding >> filter query should boost the query response time. I used luke to >> understand >> over which fields I should use filter query (those that have few unique >> terms, in my case 2 fields of 30 and 400 unique fields). I'm using solr >> 1.3. >> In order to test the query performance I disabled queryCache and >> documentCache, so I just have filterCache enabled.I did that because I >> wanted to be sure that there is no caching when I measure my queries. I >> left >> filterCache because it makes sense since filter query uses that. >> >> When I first execute my query without filter cache it runs in 400ms, next >> execution of the same query around 20ms. >> When I first execute my query with filter cache it runs in 500ms, next >> execution of the same query around 50ms. >> >> Why the query with filter query runs slower than the query without filter >> query? Shouldn't it be the other way around? >> >> My index is around 12M documents. My filterCache max size is set to 40000 >> (I >> think more than enough). The fields that I use as filter queries are >> integer >> and in my query I search over a tokenized text field. >> >> What do you think? >> >> Thanks a lot, >> >> Jonathan >> >> >> >
