Mike, I did only measurements by hand, i.e. no scientific figures yet. Basically the same oov query takes about same amount of time when repeated. Which is surprising. Ok, to add to the mix: from a list of fqs that are on that query, one is marked with cache=false and a cost > 100.
Dmitry On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Michael Sokolov < msoko...@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: > It seems as if 0-hit queries should be pretty fast since they can > terminate very early? Are you seeing a big difference between first-time > and subsequent (cached) no-match queries? > > -Mike > > > > On 6/5/2014 8:47 AM, Dmitry Kan wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Solr is good at caching: even if first "cold" query takes longer time, the >> subsequent one is much quicker, given that it shares the fq's of the first >> query. >> >> This is more like an idea question: >> >> what about the out-of-vocabulary (OOV) queries? According to my quick >> measurements, they take same amount of time when repeated and return >> nothing. >> >> Most of such queries are usually user typos, so I could imagine >> implementing a round-trip to the server with an auto-corrected query, if >> the first query returned 0 hits. This does not solve the underlining slow >> 0 >> hits query though. >> >> Would it make sense to implement an OOV cache to speed things up? Does one >> exist already in Lucene / Solr? >> >> > -- Dmitry Kan Blog: http://dmitrykan.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/dmitrykan
