This is strange.

1M unique facet terms and 10 terms per document -- sounds like this use case is 
exactly where fc would be faster. But your results  were the exact opposite.

What value for facet.limit did you set?

Was your 80/30 seconds query time spent mostly on returning the facet counts of 
all 1M of facet terms, or did you limit the number of facet terms returned to a 
small number?

Also did your entire index fit within RAM?


--- On Sat, 6/5/10, Furkan Kuru <furkank...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Furkan Kuru <furkank...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Faceted Search Slows Down as index gets larger
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org, yo...@lucidimagination.com
> Date: Saturday, June 5, 2010, 8:40 AM
> The documents full-text fields are
> 140 chars length (tweets).
> 
> Actually I had looked at those parameters and thought no
> change was
> neccessary because the terms per document would be few and
> the unique term
> count was nearly 1 M. I don't know exactly but average term
> count per
> document text can be 10 in my case.
> 
> I think I still do not get why facet.method=enum is
> faster.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Yonik Seeley 
> <yo...@lucidimagination.com>wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Andy <angelf...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > Yonik,
> > >
> > > Just curious why does using enum improve the
> facet performance.
> > >
> > > Furkan was faceting on a text field with each
> word being a facet value.
> > I'd imagine that'd mean there's a large number of
> facet values. According to
> > the documentation (
> > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SimpleFacetParameters#facet.method)
> > facet.method=fc is faster when a field has many unique
> terms. So how come
> > enum, not fc, is faster in this case?
> >
> > facet.method=fc is faster when there are many unique
> terms, and
> > relatively few terms per document.  A full-text
> field doesn't fit that
> > bill.
> >
> > > Also why use filterCache less?
> >
> > Take sup a lot of memory.
> >
> > -Yonik
> > http://www.lucidimagination.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Furkan Kuru
> 



Reply via email to