Shawn -
Thanks for your reply. Given that my application is mainly used as
faceted search, would the following types of queries make sense or are there
other pitfalls to consider?
*q=*:*&fq=someField:someValue&fq=anotherField:anotherValue*
Thanks!
Josh
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Shawn Heisey <s...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 8/24/2011 2:02 PM, Joshua Harness wrote:
>
>> I've done some basic query performance testing on my SOLR instance,
>> which allows users to search via a faceted search interface. As such,
>> document relevancy is less important to me since I am performing exact
>> match
>> searching. Comparing using filter queries with a plain query has yielded
>> remarkable performance. However, I'm suspicious of statements like
>> 'always
>> use filter queries since they are so much faster'. In my experience,
>> things
>> are never so straightforward. Can anybody provide any further guidance?
>> What
>> are the pitfalls of relying heavily on filter queries? When would one want
>> to use plain vanilla SOLR queries as opposed to filter queries?
>>
>
> Completely separate from any performance consideration, the key to their
> usage lies in their name: They are filters. They are particularly useful
> in a faceted situation, because you can have more than one of them, and the
> overall result is the intersection (AND) of them all.
>
> When someone tells the interface to restrict their search by a facet, you
> can simply add a filter query with the field:value relating to that facet
> and reissue the query. If they decide to remove that restriction, you just
> have to remove the filter query. You don't have to try and combine the
> various pieces in the query, which means you'll have much less hassle with
> parentheses.
>
> If you need a union (OR) operation with your filters, you'll have to use
> more complex construction within a single filter query, or not use them at
> all.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>
