I haven't done measurements, but the first query with a sort on a particular field will involve filling the field-cache and that can take a while (especially for numeric fields).
If you haven't already, you should compare the query times of a "warmed" searcher. Sorted queries will still take longer, but I haven't measured how much longer. -Yonik Now hiring -- http://forms.cnet.com/slink?231706 On 11/20/05, Jeff Rodenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've read many comments from users on the list indicating that sorting > may/will be performance-heavy. Is high CPU utilization with a sorted search > one of the expected performance hits? > > In tests for our implementation (25 concurrent connections generating > search/sort requests), we've seen performance in terms of requests/second > drop by a factor of 10, compared to similar tests executing only search > requests (no sorts). CPU appears to be our bottleneck, and I'm trying to > determine if this is expected behavior or if we're outside the bounds of > typical performance. > > Thanks, > jeff > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
