lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Britske <gbr...@gmail.com>
Subject big discrepancy between elapsedtime and qtime although enableLazyFieldLoading= true
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:10:48 GMT

Hi all,

For some queries I need to return a lot of rows at once (say 100). 
When performing these queries I notice a big difference between qTime (which
is mostly in the 15-30 ms range due to caching) and total time taken to
return the response (measured through SolrJ's elapsedTime), which takes
between 500-1600 ms. 

For queries which return less rows the difference becomes less big.

I presume (after reading some threads in the past) that this is due to solr
constructing and streaming the response (which includes retrieving the
stored fields) , which is something that is not calculated in qTime. 

Documents have a lot of stored fields (more than 10.000), but at any given
query a maximum of say 20 are returned (through fl-field ) or used (as part
of filtering, faceting, sorting)

I would have thought that enabling enableLazyFieldLoading for this situation
would mean a lot, since so many stored fields can be skipped, but I notice
no real difference in measuring total elapsed time (or qTime for that
matter). 

Am I missing something here? What criteria would need to be met for a field
to not be loaded for instance? Should I see a big performance boost in this
situation?

Thanks,
Britske
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/big-discrepancy-between-elapsedtime-and-qtime-although-enableLazyFieldLoading%3D-true-tp18698590p18698590.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message