Lucene multiple field search performance

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lucene multiple field search performance

Cesar Ronchese
I was doing normal queries happily, seeing the results statistics come in about 0.02 seconds.

But then, I added a extra field to seach togheter with the normal query, then the statistic pulled up to 0.35 seconds. That was a lot.

example:
normal query: some test (it returns quick)
extra field query: +bookDate:"2007/02/12" some test (it returns slow. I also tried without +)

Is the reduced performance normal for this case?


Another doubt, I thought forcing bookDate in the Search Text it would reduce the universe of search, then leading to quicker responses. But it didn't. Is there a trick to improve the speed?

Cesar
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lucene multiple field search performance

Michael Stoppelman
Did your index size increase drastically?

As a first step I would recommend optimizing your index if you haven't
already.

-M

On Feb 12, 2008 7:42 PM, Cesar Ronchese <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I was doing normal queries happily, seeing the results statistics come in
> about 0.02 seconds.
>
> But then, I added a extra field to seach togheter with the normal query,
> then the statistic pulled up to 0.35 seconds. That was a lot.
>
> example:
> normal query: some test (it returns quick)
> extra field query: +bookDate:"2007/02/12" some test (it returns slow. I
> also
> tried without +)
>
> Is the reduced performance normal for this case?
>
>
> Another doubt, I thought forcing bookDate in the Search Text it would
> reduce
> the universe of search, then leading to quicker responses. But it didn't.
> Is
> there a trick to improve the speed?
>
> Cesar
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-multiple-field-search-performance-tp15448754p15448754.html
> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lucene multiple field search performance

Cesar Ronchese
Yes, it is optimized already.

But today, when I got to test again, its looks like quick. :S
I can't understand why.




Michael Stoppelman wrote
Did your index size increase drastically?

As a first step I would recommend optimizing your index if you haven't
already.

-M

On Feb 12, 2008 7:42 PM, Cesar Ronchese <ronchese@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> I was doing normal queries happily, seeing the results statistics come in
> about 0.02 seconds.
>
> But then, I added a extra field to seach togheter with the normal query,
> then the statistic pulled up to 0.35 seconds. That was a lot.
>
> example:
> normal query: some test (it returns quick)
> extra field query: +bookDate:"2007/02/12" some test (it returns slow. I
> also
> tried without +)
>
> Is the reduced performance normal for this case?
>
>
> Another doubt, I thought forcing bookDate in the Search Text it would
> reduce
> the universe of search, then leading to quicker responses. But it didn't.
> Is
> there a trick to improve the speed?
>
> Cesar
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-multiple-field-search-performance-tp15448754p15448754.html
> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lucene multiple field search performance

Erick Erickson
Have you looked at the query.toString()? In particular, is your
date being split up into pieces on the slashes?

But why it's working today, I have no clue. Unless you were seeing
results on a freshly-opened reader yesterday....

Erick

On Feb 13, 2008 7:12 AM, Cesar Ronchese <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Yes, it is optimized already.
>
> But today, when I got to test again, its looks like quick. :S
> I can't understand why.
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael Stoppelman wrote:
> >
> > Did your index size increase drastically?
> >
> > As a first step I would recommend optimizing your index if you haven't
> > already.
> >
> > -M
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2008 7:42 PM, Cesar Ronchese <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I was doing normal queries happily, seeing the results statistics come
> in
> >> about 0.02 seconds.
> >>
> >> But then, I added a extra field to seach togheter with the normal
> query,
> >> then the statistic pulled up to 0.35 seconds. That was a lot.
> >>
> >> example:
> >> normal query: some test (it returns quick)
> >> extra field query: +bookDate:"2007/02/12" some test (it returns slow. I
> >> also
> >> tried without +)
> >>
> >> Is the reduced performance normal for this case?
> >>
> >>
> >> Another doubt, I thought forcing bookDate in the Search Text it would
> >> reduce
> >> the universe of search, then leading to quicker responses. But it
> didn't.
> >> Is
> >> there a trick to improve the speed?
> >>
> >> Cesar
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-multiple-field-search-performance-tp15448754p15448754.html
> >> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Lucene-multiple-field-search-performance-tp15448754p15456841.html
> Sent from the Lucene - Java Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>