# Fast vector highlighter (fvh) making searches slower **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [December 1, 2021, 7:33am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/fast-vector-highlighter-fvh-making-searches-slower/290634 "2021-12-01T07:33:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![Mark\_Harwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/mark_harwood/32/10538_2.png) [@Mark\_Harwood](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Mark_Harwood)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2021, 9:34am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/fast-vector-highlighter-fvh-making-searches-slower/290634/4 "2021-12-01T09:34:20Z")
So the diff we are seeing is between FVH and no highlighting? We can obviously expect performance differences there so a better test might be FVH versus another choice of highlighter. Despite its name, FVH is not always faster. IIRC it relies on pre-computed disk stores of offsets to avoid re-tokenizing document strings. This might help avoid heavy costs of analyzing lengthy texts at query time but the trade-off doesn't always work in your favour. Maybe the costs of retrieving the pre-computed offsets from disk are higher than just re-analyzing short strings for highlighting. We don't know because your benchmarking was FVH vs no highlighting. I'd suggest trying a different choice of highlighter implementation and benchmarking FVH versus that for a more realistic comparison. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/fast-vector-highlighter-fvh-making-searches-slower/290634)._