Hi David,
I'm following this topic. Would you please elaborate a little bit why docValues
on a boolean field might be a bad idea? Is this specific to a Solr major
release, or more a general concern? Do you have a documentation link to share?
We were told that docValues should be enabled on facetted fields to improve
performance, so are boolean types an exception here?
Thank you,
Mirko
Am 08.01.2024 um 01:27 schrieb David Smiley:
Enabling docValues on a boolean field is probably not a good idea. If
disabling that doesn't help (and I do think it will), then you might want
to use a simple string field that a doc either has the name of the boolean
(if true) or does not, then facet on that.
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:18 PM Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote:
How does it work with facet.method=enum?
Slicing to even smaller shards makes sense.
On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 12:10 AM rajani m <rajinima...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Solr Users,
Queries with facets show 2x increase in latency. This facet field is a
boolean field with docvalues enabled[1]. Same queries without facets
have
~50 ms and with facets it is ~120ms. Is this an expected performance?
Appreciate any suggestions to optimize it.
Additional details - I am querying a single shard,
distrib=false&cache=false, standard query such as
"&q=cats&defType=edismax&qf=keywords title desc body" have ~50 ms qtime
and
with facets (facet=true&facet.field=has_color) it is jumping to 120ms. Is
this expected performance with facets, or are there other factors that
could be cause result to such increase in the latency? Could this be
because of shard index size which is 65 gb, is this big? and would
splitting the shard into a 30gb size improve the performance? Cpu and ram
should not be a concern, the node hosting shard has enough ram to fit the
entire shard index and has 16vcpus. What other factors can result in
increasing latency? Appreciate suggestions to improve the latency.
[1] <fieldType name="boolean" class="solr.BoolField"
sortMissingLast="true"
omitNorms="true" docValues="true"/>
Thanks,
Rajani
--
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
