Well, by changing your query, you are changing your criteria, so I assume you also got different (less) results. That's one reason why your query got faster. If index size is the issue, and that Field1 consumes most of it, and you are not using it in search (I don't see it in your sample query), experiment with splitting the index and searching only the smaller index, perhaps making use of ParallelReader.
Otis --- mopster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I am testing the speed of searching Lucene indexes. The index is of > the larger size! It has about 500,000 documents, about 60 fields with > 1 field (Field1) containing the body of the document. Total index > size is currently about 20Gb > > Testing the search i get this behaviour > > (Field2:1) AND (Field10:50000) AND ( Field10010:null OR Field10010:14 > OR Field10010:G2 NOT Field10009:14 AND (Field10000:0 OR Field10000:1 > OR Field10000:2 OR Field10000:3) AND ((Field10005:null AND > Field10006:null AND Field10007:null Field10008:null ) OR > (Field10005:2 OR Field10006:2 OR Field10007:14 OR Field10008:14))) > > took 13 secs (don't worry about the high field values. Started at > 10,000. Null is just a search tag entered if nothing is in the > field) > > so took out the NOT > > (Field2:1) AND (Field10:50000) AND ( Field10010:1 OR Field10010:14 OR > Field10010:G2 AND Field10009:14 AND (Field10000:0 OR Field10000:1 OR > Field10000:2 OR Field10000:3) AND ((Field10005:1 AND Field10006:1 AND > Field10007:1 Field10008:1 ) OR (Field10005:2 OR Field10006:2 OR > Field10007:14 OR Field10008:14))) > > took 9 secs > > so took out the OR > > (Field2:1) AND (Field10:50000) AND ( Field10010:1 AND Field10010:14 > AND Field10010:G2 AND Field10009:14 AND (Field10000:0 AND > Field10000:1 AND Field10000:2 AND Field10000:3) AND ((Field10005:1 > AND > Field10006:1 AND Field10007:1 Field10008:1 ) AND (Field10005:2 AND > Field10006:2 AND Field10007:14 AND Field10008:14))) > > took 4 secs > > so took out the extra () > > Field2:1 AND Field10:50000 AND Field10010:1 AND Field10010:14 AND > Field10010:G2 AND Field10009:14 AND Field10000:0 AND Field10000:1 > AND > Field10000:2 AND Field10000:3 AND Field10005:1 AND Field10006:1 AND > Field10007:1 Field10008:1 AND Field10005:2 AND Field10006:2 AND > Field10007:14 AND Field10008:14 > > took 1 second > > Has anyone got any thoughts on this? Do i need to the search > differently? Should I not have indexes this large. Maybe smaller ones > and combine the results? > > Has anyone else had this type of issue? > > Regards, > > Paul > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
