Hi Anton,
I don't see anything obvious. However something that surprised me is
that the number of matches looks quite different in the filter and
query case, are we actually comparing oranges to oranges?
I'm wondering if the explanation could lie in the fact that the
initial caching phase is more
Hi Adrien.
" Can you confirm that the response times that you are reporting both
happen on Lucene 5.2 "
- no, I upgraded Lucene from 5.0 to 5.2, and only in 5.2 tried to use
CachingWrapperQuery
" on a "hot cache" "
- answer is no, because I have a lot of different of queries, and
therefore di
Hi Anton,
Thanks for reporting this. It is indeed a bit surprising given that
both classes work in a very similar way. Can you confirm that the
response times that you are reporting both happen on Lucene 5.2 (even
with CachingWrapperFilter) and on a "hot cache" (so that they don't
include the gene
Hi,
I have performance issues with CachingWrapperQuery with lucene 5.2 and
dont know how to solve it.
Prehistory:
I have search with different parameters, where some parameters are used
more frequently then others. For these params I used filters(and cached
them), and my search looked li
