Thanks for all the help, guys!
Just to clarify. Everything is working functionality-wise - we have
tests showing that.
It is just that two similar queries (hitting the same number of rows
(only 6 among 12billion in this example) and resulting in the same
number of facet-groups etc etc) is performing very differently depending
on the type of the facet.field. It is fast (< 2 secs) and efficient when
the facet.field is
<dynamicField name="*_dlng_doc_sto" type="dlng" indexed="false"
stored="true" required="true" docValues="true"/>
<fieldType name="dlng" class="solr.TrieLongField" precisionStep="0"
positionIncrementGap="0" docValuesFormat="Disk"/>
But it is very slow (> 100 secs) and memory-consuming (eating GBs) when
the facet.field is
<dynamicField name="*_dstr_doc_sto" type="dstring" indexed="false"
stored="true" required="true" docValues="true"/>
<fieldType name="dstring" class="solr.StrField"
sortMissingLast="true" docValuesFormat="Disk"/>
We use docValuesFormat="Disk" because we have so much data, that
everything will never fit in memory. Are you saying that this does not
work before 4.5? But how does it explain the huge difference in
response-time and memory-consumption? Guess, if it does not work in 4.4,
that it does not work for neither of the types?
Just a side-question: We never have more than one value per field. Would
we benefit from adding multiValued=false to our field-declarations?
Regards, Per Steffensen
On 11/5/13 11:44 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 11/5/2013 11:56 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
Hmmm, what I'm referring to is this bit:
|<||fieldType||name||=||"string_ondisk"||class||=||"solr.StrField"||docValuesFormat||=||"Disk"||/>|
|
|
|The docValuesFormat="Disk" bit isn't supported until 4.5, which
doesn't seem clear in either place. Feel free to disagree of course :).|
I'm pretty sure that the disk format was supported from 4.2, when
docvalues first came to Solr. Not sure about earlier. Here's someone
with it working on 4.2.1:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/201304.mbox/%[email protected]%3E
Something that wasn't supported that far back (and as far as I know
still isn't supported) is upgrading Solr with an existing index that
uses the disk format.
Thanks,
Shawn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
