Thanks David. Query times are really quick and my index is only 20Mb now which is about what I would expect. I'm having some problems figuring out what type of query I want to find *Available* properties with this new points system.
I'm storing bookings against each document. So I have X Y coordinates, where X will be the check in of a previous booking, and Y will be the departure. So for example illustrative purposes, a weeks booking from 10th January to the 17th, would be X Y => 10 17 <field name="booking">10 17</field> <field name="booking">22 27</field> I might have several bookings. Now, I want to find available properties with my search, but I'm just not sure on the ordering of the end/start in the polygon Intersect. I've looked at this document very carefully and tried to draw it all out on paper. https://people.apache.org/~hossman/spatial-for-non-spatial-meetup-20130117/ Here are the suggestions: q=fieldX:"Intersects(-∞ end start ∞)" q=fieldX:"Intersects(-∞ start end ∞)" q=fieldX:"Intersects(start -∞ ∞ end)" All of these, are great for finding the existance of a field coordinate, but I need to make sure that the property is available. So I thought I could use one of these three queries in the negative by using -fieldX:"Inter...." but none of those work. Can you shine some light on what I might be missing? What ordering would I want for *availability* Thanks very much. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Smiley, David W. <dsmi...@mitre.org> wrote: > Hi Chris: > > Have you read: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpatialForTimeDurations > You're modeling your data sub-optimally. Full precision rectangles > (distErrPct=0) doesn't scale well and you're seeing that. You should > represent your durations as a point and it will take up a fraction of the > space (see above). Furthermore, because your detail gets into one digit > to the right of the decimal, your maxDistErr should definitely be smaller > than 1 -- use something like 0.5 (given you have two levels of precision > below a full day) but to be safer (more certain it's not a problem) use > 0.3 -- a little less. Please report back how that goes. > > ~ David > > On 6/3/13 7:27 AM, "Chris Atkinson" <chrisa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Hi, > >I'm seeing really slow query times. 7-25 seconds when I run a simple > >filter > >query that uses my SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType field. > > > >My index is about 30k documents. Prior to adding the Spatial field, the on > >disk space was about 100Mb, so it's a really tiny index. Once I add the > >spatial field (which is multi-values), the index size jumps up to 2GB. (Is > >this normal?). > > > >Only about 10k documents will have any spatial data. Typically, they will > >have at most 10 shapes each, but the majority are all one of two > >rectangles. > > > >This is my fieldType definition. > > > > <fieldType name="date_availability" > >class="solr.SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType" > > geo="false" > > worldBounds="0 0 3650 1" > > distErrPct="0" > > maxDistErr="1" > > units="degrees" > > /> > > > >And the field > > > > <field name="availability_spatial" type="date_availability" > > indexed="true" stored="false" multiValued="true" /> > > > > > >I am using the field to represent approximately 10 years after January 1st > >2013, where each day is along the X-axis. Because the availability starts > >and ends at 2pm and 10am, I was using a decimal place when creating my > >shape to show that detail. (Is this approach wrong?) > > > >So a typical rectangle when indexed would be (minX minY maxX maxY) > > > >Rectangle 100.6 0 120.4 1 > > > >Is it wrong that my Y and X values are not of the same scale? Since I > >don't > >care about the Y axis at all, I just set it to be of 1 height always. > > > >I'm running Solr 4.3, with a small JVM of 768M (can be increased). And I > >have 2GB RAM. (Again can be increased). > > > >Thanks > >
