lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From lei <simpl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Performance on faceting using docValues
Date Mon, 09 Mar 2015 19:55:52 GMT
Sure, here is the link to the image of term histograms. Thanks.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1tma4hkYjxJfBTnMbO6Pq_dUHqZ0wI_UTlgoVqXtW4ZA/edit?usp=sharing

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Anshum Gupta <anshum@anshumgupta.net>
wrote:

> Hi Lei,
>
> The mailing list doesn't allow attachments. Can you share these via a file
> sharing platform?
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:48 AM, lei <simplely@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Solr instance is single-shard. Index size is around 20G and total doc
> > # is about 12 million. Below are the histograms for the three facet
> fields
> > in my query. Thanks.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Toke Eskildsen <te@statsbiblioteket.dk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 21:14 +0100, lei wrote:
> >>
> >> You present a very interesting observation. I have not noticed what you
> >> describe, but on the other hand we have not done comparative speed
> >> tests.
> >>
> >> > q=*:*&fq=country:"US"&fq=category:112
> >>
> >> First observation: Your query is '*:*, which is a "magic" query. Non-DV
> >> faceting has optimizations both for this query (although that ought to
> >> be disabled due to the fq) and for the "inverse" case where there are
> >> more hits than non-hits. Perhaps you could test with a handful of
> >> queries, which has different result sizes?
> >>
> >> > &facet=on&facet.sort=index&facet.mincount=1&facet.limit=2000
> >>
> >> The combination of index order and a high limit might be an explanation:
> >> When resolving the Strings of the facet result, non-DV will perform
> >> ordinal-lookup, which is fast when done in monotonic rising order
> >> (sort=index) and if the values are close (limit=2000). I do not know if
> >> DV benefits the same way.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, your limit seems to apply only to material, so it
> >> could be that the real number of unique values is low and you just set
> >> the limit to 2000 to be sure you get everything?
> >>
> >> > &facet.field=manufacturer&facet.field=seller&facet.field=material
> >> >
> >>
> &f.manufacturer.facet.mincount=1&f.manufacturer.facet.sort=count&f.manufacturer.facet.limit=100
> >> >
> >>
> &f.seller.facet.mincount=1&f.seller.facet.sort=count&f.seller.facet.limit=100
> >> > &f.material.facet.mincount=1&sort=score+desc
> >>
> >> How large is your index in bytes, how many documents does it contain and
> >> is it single-shard or cloud? Could you paste the loglines containing
> >> "UnInverted field", which describes the number of unique values and size
> >> of your facet fields?
> >>
> >> - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> Anshum Gupta
>

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