The "numFound" value is 200-300 docs difference when compared to the query without "minExactFound" param. The collection has over 400m records so testing the feature on a large collection. The numFoundExact param in the response is consistently false which tells me the feature is functioning but the results(qtime) are just off, not as expected.
Would a type of query parser matter?I tested without the secondary sort, even without it there is no improvement in the query time latency and is still more than the query without this param. On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 10:34 AM Mikhail Khludnev <m...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello, > How many matches do you have in both cases? > I see there's a second sorting expression, it might not comply with the > requirements. > I'd rather start from the simple single query parser, just for the > experiments. > Note: I never tried it myself. > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 6:20 PM rajani m <rajinima...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I ran performance tests with different query sets and the results look no > > good, it is adding to the latency around ~15% instead of reducing or even > > matching. Not sure if I am missing something in the config or it is an > > issue. > > > > Here is an example query *without* WAND query parameter > > select?&fl=id,ext_id&start=0&q.op=OR&sort=score desc,ext_id > > asc&rows=10&q=white flowers card&defType=edismax&qf=keywords description > > title > > vs > > *With* WAND query parameter > > select?&fl=id,ext_id&start=0&q.op=OR&sort=score desc,ext_id > > asc&rows=10&q=white flowers card&defType=edismax&qf=keywords description > > title*&minExactCount=10* > > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 8:36 AM rajani m <rajinima...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Ishan, > > > I have looked into that doc, and it looks like the solr version has > to > > > be >8.8 and the config needed is to add the query parameter > > "&minExactCount=k" > > > where k is 10 or 100 depending on the accuracy of the first k docs. > > > > > > I ran a query performance test using an internal tool, with k set to 10 > > > and 100, which barely showed any difference in query time latency, I > > > didn't expect that so I was wondering if there is any configuration I > > > missed. > > > > > > I will run a couple more tests with different query sets meanwhile and > > dig > > > further into implementation of the feature to see if I am missing any > > > config here. Appreciate any suggestions. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rajani > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 12:53 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < > > > ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Is it possible to benchmark the query performance across a larger set > of > > >> queries? You can leverage Solr Bench, if needed. > > >> https://github.com/fullstorydev/solr-bench > > >> > > >> On Thu, 1 Feb, 2024, 11:20 am Ishan Chattopadhyaya, < > > >> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Some documentation is here > > >> > > > >> > > > https://solr.apache.org/guide/8_6/common-query-parameters.html#minexactcount-parameter > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, 1 Feb, 2024, 9:53 am rajani m, <rajinima...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Hi All, > > >> >> > > >> >> To leverage the query time improvements that come with the Block > > MAX > > >> >> WAND > > >> >> feature, what are the required configurations? > > >> >> > > >> >> I am on solr 9.1.1 version. As per docs, including > > "minExactCount=100" > > >> >> query param should do it, however I don't see any drop in query > time, > > >> it > > >> >> is > > >> >> more or less the same. Am I missing something? > > >> >> > > >> >> The queries I tested with are standard ones with edismax as query > > >> parser > > >> >> and query text is converted into boolean clauses and query has 2 > > boost > > >> >> params by date and popularity field. I included the "minExactCount" > > >> set to > > >> >> as low as 10 and 100 and increased to 1000 but didn't see key > change > > in > > >> >> query time, it was about the same. > > >> >> > > >> >> Would including boost or use of edismax parser not benefit with > > block > > >> MAX > > >> >> WAND? Example query /select?q=((white) AND (roses OR > > >> >> jasmine))&defType=edismax&qf=keywords description > > >> >> title&pf2=title&bf=recip(ms(NOW,datefield),3.16e-11,1,1)^2.0 > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> Thank you, > > >> >> Rajani > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Sincerely yours > Mikhail Khludnev >
