Hey Ian This assettype is variable. It can have around 6 values at a time. But this is true that we apply facet mostly on just one field - assettype.
Any idea if the use of date range queries is expensive? Also if Shalin can put in some comments on "sorting by date was pretty rough on CPU", I can start analyzing sort by date specific queries. Will look into suggestions/queries by Tom and Shalin and then post the findings. Thanks Dipti On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net> wrote: > On 1/5/10 12:46 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote: > >> sitename:XYZ OR sitename:"All Sites") AND (localeid:1237400589415) AND >>> > ((assettype:Gallery)) AND (rbcategory:"ABC XYZ" ) AND (startdate:[* >>> TO >>> > 2009-12-07T23:59:00Z] AND enddate:[2009-12-07T00:00:00Z TO >>> > *])&rows=9&start=63&sort=date >>> > desc&facet=true&facet.field=assettype&facet.mincount=1 >>> > >>> > Similar to this query we have several much complex queries supporting >>> all >>> > major landing pages of our application. >>> > >>> > Just want to confirm that whether anyone can identify any major flaws >>> or >>> > issues in the sample query? >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >> I'm not the expert Shalin is, but I seem to remember sorting by date was > pretty rough on CPU. (this could have been resolved since I last looked at > it) > > the other thing I'd question is the facet. it looks like your only > retrieving a single assetType (Gallery). > so you will only get a single field back. if thats the case, wouldn't the > rows returned (which is part of the response) > give you the same answer ? > > > Most of those AND conditions can be separate filter queries. Filter >> queries >> can be cached separately and can therefore be re-used. See >> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FilterQueryGuidance >> >> >> > >
