# Performance issue on some requests

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-issue-on-some-requests/77991>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [March 9, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-issue-on-some-requests/77991 "2017-03-09T13:54:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jprante](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/jprante/32/44941_2.png) [@jprante](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/jprante)\
**Post date:** [March 13, 2017, 6:07pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-issue-on-some-requests/77991/4 "2017-03-13T18:07:30Z")

</div>

> [@RVillette](#):
>
> So, here is my question... How do you think we could reduce the CPU usage?  
> [...]  
> Other?

Do not execute range queries/filters on millisecond resolution fields, prefer seconds resolution if you want high performance.

> [@Query much faster against timestamp in seconds than milliseconds](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/query-much-faster-against-timestamp-in-seconds-than-milliseconds/58767/):
>
> I have a query which is significantly faster if I run it against a field containing a timestamp in seconds instead of milliseconds. Query 1- uses timestampMilliseconds, averages 500ms to execute: { index: 'events', body: { query: { bool: { filter: { and: [{ term: { userId: ... } }, { range: { timestampMilliseconds: { lt: ... } } }] } } } }, sort: 'timestampMilliseconds:desc', size: 300, requestTimeout…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-issue-on-some-requests/77991)._