Careful comparing apples to oranges ;-) For one, your lucene code doesn't retrieve stored fields. Did you try the solr request more than once (with a different q, but the same filters?)
Also, by default, Solr independently caches the filters. This can be higher up-front cost, but a win when filters are reused. If you want something closer to your lucene code, you could add all the filters to the main query and not use "fq". -Yonik http://www.lucidimagination.com On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:07 AM, kafka0102 <kafka0...@163.com> wrote: > HI. > my solr seach has some performance problem recently. > my query is like that: q=xx&fq=fid:1&fq=atm:[int_time1 TO int_time2], > fid's type is : <fieldType name="int" class="solr.TrieIntField" > precisionStep="0" omitNorms="true" positionIncrementGap="0"/> > atm's type is : <fieldType name="sint" class="solr.TrieIntField" > precisionStep="8" omitNorms="true" positionIncrementGap="0"/> > my index's size is about 500M and record num is 3984274. > when I use solr's SolrIndexSearcher.search(QueryResult qr, QueryCommand > cmd), it cost about70ms. When I changed use lucence'API, just like bottom: > > final SolrQueryRequest req = rb.req; > final SolrIndexSearcher searcher = req.getSearcher(); > final SolrIndexSearcher.QueryCommand cmd = rb.getQueryCommand(); > final ExecuteTimeStatics timeStatics = > ExecuteTimeStatics.getExecuteTimeStatics(); > final ExecuteTimeUnit staticUnit = > timeStatics.addExecuteTimeUnit("test2"); > staticUnit.start(); > final List<Query> query = cmd.getFilterList(); > final BooleanQuery booleanFilter = new BooleanQuery(); > for (final Query q : query) { > booleanFilter.add(new BooleanClause(q,Occur.MUST)); > } > booleanFilter.add(new BooleanClause(cmd.getQuery(),Occur.MUST)); > logger.info("q:"+query); > final Sort sort = cmd.getSort(); > final TopFieldDocs docs = searcher.search(booleanFilter,null,20,sort); > final StringBuilder sbBuilder = new StringBuilder(); > for (final ScoreDoc doc :docs.scoreDocs) { > sbBuilder.append(doc.doc+","); > } > logger.info("hits:"+docs.totalHits+",result:"+sbBuilder.toString()); > staticUnit.end(); > > it cost only about 20ms. > I'm so confused. For solr's config, I closed cache. For test, I first called > lucene's, and then solr's. > Maybe I should look solr's source more carefully. But now, can anyone knows > the reason? > > >
