If you are querying on a field, you should index it!

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Per Steffensen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi
>
> We have a 6-Solr-node (release 4.4.0) setup with 12billion "small" documents
> loadad. The documents have the following fields
> * a_dlng_doc_sto
> * b_dlng_doc_sto
> * c_dstr_doc_sto
> * timestamp_lng_ind_sto
> * d_lng_ind_sto
> From schema.xml
>     <dynamicField name="*_dstr_doc_sto" type="dstring" indexed="false"
> stored="true" required="true" docValues="true"/>
>     <dynamicField name="*_lng_ind_sto" type="long" indexed="true"
> stored="true"/>
>     <dynamicField name="*_dlng_doc_sto" type="dlng" indexed="false"
> stored="true" required="true" docValues="true"/>
> ...
>     <fieldType name="dstring" class="solr.StrField" sortMissingLast="true"
> docValuesFormat="Disk"/>
>     <fieldType name="dlng" class="solr.TrieLongField" precisionStep="0"
> positionIncrementGap="0" docValuesFormat="Disk"/>
>
> We execute queries on the following format:
> * q=timestamp_lng_ind_sto:[x TO y] AND d_lng_ind_sto:(a OR b OR ... OR n)
> * facet=true&facet.field=<field>&facet.zeros=false&facet.mincount=1
>
> F.ex executing a query with values for x, y, a, b ... and n that hits only 6
> documents (out of the 12billion) total
> * With <field>=a_dlng_doc_sto (long docvalue) the query responds fairly
> quick (< 2 sec)
> * With <field>=c_dstr_doc_sto (string docvalue) the query responds very
> slowly (> 100 sec) and only if we give the Solr-nodes a lot of Xmx. If Xmx
> is too low we experience OOM on involved Solr-nodes and never see a response
> c_dstr_doc_sto strings are all about 10-15 chars, so it is not very long
> strings
>
> Is it a known issue that there is such a big difference between facet
> searches on longs and strings? And that memory usage seems to very
> different, also?
> If yes, has it been optimized after 4.4.0?
>
> Regards, Per Steffensen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to