lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erick Erickson <>
Subject Re: comparing index-time boost and sort in the case of a date field
Date Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:16:46 GMT
First, could you state the reason you aren't satisfied? You imply that your
speed isn't what you want, so some details would help.

How big is your index? How many documents? What query is slow? Is your
first query slow or all queries where you sort on date? This later is, as
David says,
may be curable by a warmup query or two. How are you storing your dates, in
particular, what is their resolution?

The more details, the better answer people can give <G>..


On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Smiley, David W. <> wrote:

> Using index time boosting isn't really a substitute for sorting.  It will
> be faster (I'm pretty sure) but isn't the same thing.  The index time boost
> is going to influence the score but not totally become the score... which
> means that in all likelihood there will be documents in search results that
> are out of order with respect to the approval_dt.  You might use high boost
> values as a compromise (ex: 100,200,300,...) but that wouldn't feel right to
> me in any case.
> If your sorting result performance isn't fast enough then I'd discuss it
> here with everyone.  You'll want to put fields you sort on (like
> approval_dt) in a warming query so that when the search needs to sort on
> this field, the sort information is already cached.  This cache is
> invalidated when you modify the index, by the way.
> ~ David Smiley
> Author:
> On Nov 20, 2009, at 11:34 AM, Anil Cherian wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a requirement to get results in the order of latest date of a
> field
> > called approval_dt. ie results having the latest approval date should
> appear
> > first in the SOLR results xml. A sorting "desc" on approval_dt gave me
> this.
> >
> > Can index-time boost be of use here to improve performance. Could you
> please
> > help me with an answer.
> >
> > Thank You.
> > Anil.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message