You seem to be jumping to conclusions about causes. Might want to step back and 
do some measurements.

Try eliminating parts of the query one at a time, including returning fields. 
You might need to do this with a query set of a few thousand queries to avoid 
cache effects.

wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)

> On Jan 26, 2024, at 12:13 PM, Srijan <shree...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I stand corrected. Looks like my stored fields were compressed in Solr 8.11
> too. But something seems to have changed in 9.x. Decompression is awfully
> slow. New algorithm?
> 
> Regarding binary field, Solr doesn't allow docvalues for binary field (btw
> Lucene does). So I tried using stored binary field but now I have to load
> the entire document to read this one stored field (and I have tons of
> stored fields)
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, 2:44 PM Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hello.
>> Agreed. By default it's BEST_SPEED which is LZ4. So, it can't be faster
>> or less compressive. Binary DocValues Field should be an answer.
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 9:41 PM Shawn Heisey <elyog...@elyograg.org.invalid
>>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1/26/24 03:38, Srijan wrote:
>>>> Since upgrading to Solr 9.x, I've observed a drastic decrease in
>>>> performance – approximately 10 to 20 times slower than before. And this
>>>> stems from the fact that stored fields in Solr 9.x are now compressed.
>>>> Decompressing these fields during each search query has introduced a
>>>> substantial performance overhead.
>>> 
>>> Stored fields have been compressed since Solr 4.1.0.  Unless you
>>> upgraded from a VERY old version, stored field compression is unlikely
>>> to be the source of your performance issue.
>>> 
>>> You can have the source of the data uncompressed if you set stored to
>>> false, docValues to true, and useDocValuesAsStored to true.  Not all
>>> fieldtype classes support docValues, though -- in particular TextField
>>> does not.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Shawn
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Sincerely yours
>> Mikhail Khludnev
>> 

Reply via email to