Hi Aswath,
It is not common to test only QPS unless it is static index most of the
time. Usually you have to test and tune worst case scenario - max
expected indexing rate + queries. You can get more QPS by reducing query
latency or by increasing number of replicas. You manage latency by
tunin
Not sure I quite understand.
You're saying that the cost for the UI is not large, but then suggesting
we protect just one resource (/admin/security-check)?
Why couldn't we create the permission called 'admin-ui' and protect
everything under /admin/ui/ for example? Along with the root HTML link
to
Hi Jim,
I think you could do some magic with function queries.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Function+Queries
Index number of unique words in the product title e.g.
title = john smith
length = 2
return products if the number of matching terms equals to the number of words
Hi!
I'm a very inexperienced user with Solr. I've been using Solr to
provide indexes for my Dovecot IMAP server. Using version 3.x, and
later 4.x, I have been able to do so without too much of a challenge.
However, version 5.x has certainly changed quite a bit and I'm very
uncertain how to
At the moment it seems that it's only settable via System properties - see
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/ZooKeeper+Access+Control. But
it would be nice to do this programmatically as well, maybe worth opening a
JIRA ticket?
Alan Woodward
www.flax.co.uk
On 17 Nov 2015, at 1
On 18/11/2015 07:55, Noble Paul wrote:
I haven't evaluated manifoldCF for this .
However , my preference would be to have a generic mechanism in built
into Solr to restrict user access to certain docs based on some field
values. Relying on external tools make life complex for users who do
not lik
Hi,
Can you help me out how I can configure it on a server?
It was configured on one of our servers but I am unable to replicate it.
Can you please help.
Thanks,
Prateek
This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and
confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement
Hi Prateek,
Your question is little ambiguous. Could you please describe it more
precisely what you want to configure on server and what is your requirement
and problem. This will be more helpful to understand your problem.
With Regards
Aman Tandon
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Prateek Sharma
Hi, I have encountered some problems with solr-5.3.1. After I initialized the
solrcloud and set up BasicAuthPlugin and RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin,
something wrong happened to my solrcloud. I can't Synchronization as usual. The
server log as follows:
master log
Invalid key PKIAuthenticationPlug
Hi
You could try this
Instead of example/, use the server/ folder (it has Jetty in it)
Start Solr using bin/solr start script instead of java -jar start.jar …
Leave your solrconfig and schema as is to keep back-compat with 4.x.
You may need to remove use of 3.x classes that were deprecated in 4.x
As of now the admin-ui calls are not protected. The static calls are
served by jetty and it bypasses the authentication mechanism
completely. If the admin UI relies on some API call which is served by
Solr.
The other option is to revamp the framework to take care of admin UI
(static content) as wel
Assuming this is the only, specific kind of search you want, what about
using shingles of tokens at query time and keyword tokenizer at indexing
time ?
Ideally you don't tokenise at indexing time.
At query time you build your shingles ( apparently you need not only
adiacent token shingles, so play
I tried out BasicAuthPlugin today.
Surprised that not admin UI is protected.
But even more surprised that only /select seems to be protected for not logged
in users.
I can create collections and /update documents without being prompted for pw.
My security.json is https://gist.github.com/janhoy/d1
On Solr 4.10.3 I'm noting a different (desired) behaviour
1) add document x
2) delete document x
3) commit
document x doesn't get indexed.
The question now is: Can I count on this behaviour or is it just incidental?
2014-11-05 22:21 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla :
> Perfectly clear,
> thanks
On 11/18/2015 8:21 AM, Matteo Grolla wrote:
> On Solr 4.10.3 I'm noting a different (desired) behaviour
>
> 1) add document x
> 2) delete document x
> 3) commit
>
> document x doesn't get indexed.
If the last operation for document X is to delete it, then it will be
gone after the commit and not
Everything requires explicit rules, if you wish to protect "/update/*"
create a permission with name "update" and assign a role for the same.
If you don't have an explicit rule, those paths are accessible by all
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jan Høydahl wrote:
> I tried out BasicAuthPlugin tod
Thanks Shawn,
I'm aware that solr isn't transactional and I don't need this property:
a single application is indexing.
With solr 4.6 I was noting a different behaviour, with 4.10 I'm observing
the desired one.
I'd like to know If I can count on this behaviour to be maintained by
successive solr
Thanks Alan!
That works! I was looking for a programatic way to do it, but this will work
for now as it doesn’t seem to be supported.
- Kevin
> On Nov 18, 2015, at 1:24 AM, Alan Woodward wrote:
>
> At the moment it seems that it's only settable via System properties - see
> https://cwiki.ap
Then that was probably a bug in 4.6. There's a lot
of work that's been done since then, and distributed
updates that are mixed like this are particularly
"interesting".
So you should be able to count on this.
One other possibility: Is it possible that this was a false
failure in 4.6 and a commit
Thanks Erik,
I observed the wrong behaviour on 4.6 in a controlled environment with
a very simple test case, so It's was probably a bug (or I was drunk ;-) )
Really thanks again!!!
2015-11-18 17:40 GMT+01:00 Erick Erickson :
> Then that was probably a bug in 4.6. There's a lot
> of work that
On 11/17/2015 12:42 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> I have upgraded from 5.2.1 to a 5.3.2 snapshot -- the lucene_solr_5_3
> branch plus the patch for SOLR-6188.
>
> I'm getting errors in my log every time I make a commit on a core.
>
> 2015-11-16 20:28:11.554 ERROR
> (searcherExecutor-82-thread-1-process
please unsubscribe me.
Regards,
YP
You should probably send an email to solr-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
Reference links
http://lucene.apache.org/solr/resources.html#community
https://wiki.apache.org/solr/Unsubscribing%20from%20mailing%20lists
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Pramod wrote:
> please unsubscribe me.
>
>
Just an update: my problem turned out to be that in the search-component, I
decremented the entry for the user running a query in the first call to
finishStage, and didn't realize that most of the query processing and time
occurs only in later stages.
Because the entry was decremented so quickly,
Implementing security.json is breaking ADDREPLICA
I have been able to reproduce this issue with minimal changes from an
out-of-the-box Zookeeper (3.4.6) and Solr (5.3.1): loading
configsets/basic_configs/conf into Zookeeper, creating the security.json listed
below, creating two nodes (one with
I'm very happy for the admin UI to be served another way - i.e. not
direct from Jetty, if that makes the task of securing it easier.
Perhaps a request handler specifically for UI resources which would make
it possible to secure it all in a more straight-forward way?
Upayavira
On Wed, Nov 18, 201
Hi,
I am using KStem factory for stemming. This stemmer converts 'france to
french', 'chinese to china' etc.. I am good with this stemming but I am
trying to boost the results that contain the original term compared to the
stemmed terms. Is this possible?
Thanks,
Learner
--
View this message
: > I'm getting errors in my log every time I make a commit on a core.
Do you have any custom plugins?
what is the definition of the /lbcheck handler?
: > 2015-11-16 20:28:11.554 ERROR
: > (searcherExecutor-82-thread-1-processing-x:sparkinclive) [
: > x:sparkinclive] o.a.s.c.SolrCore Previous
Hi - easiest approach is to use KeywordRepeatFilter and
RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilter. This creates a slightly higher IDF for unstemmed
words which might be just enough in your case. We found it not to be enough, so
we also attach payloads to signify stemmed words amongst others. This allows
you
If you see "WARNING: too many searchers on deck" or something like that in
the logs, that could cause this behavior and would indicate you are opening
searchers faster than Solr can keep up.
- Mark
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:05 PM Erick Erickson
wrote:
> That's what was behind my earlier comment
On 11/18/2015 2:20 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> : > I'm getting errors in my log every time I make a commit on a core.
>
> Do you have any custom plugins?
> what is the definition of the /lbcheck handler?
I have one simple update processor in use that I wrote myself, and we
have a third-party plu
Hi - i sometimes see the too many searcher warning to since some 5.x version.
The warning cloud has no autoCommit and there is only a single process ever
sending a commit, only once every 10-15 minutes orso. The cores are quite
small, commits finish quickly and new docs are quickly searchable. I
i'm trying to add document with the nested objects but don't want id to be
generated automatically.
When i add document without nesting it's ok.But if i add _childDocuments_
there is an error [doc=null] missing required field: id
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.
On 11/17/2015 1:11 AM, adfel70
Could it be that the parameter waitSearcher=true doesn't really work?
or maybe I don't understand something here...
I am just guessing with this, but I think this is likely how it works:
I believe that if maxWarmingSearchers is exceeded, a commit call will
retur
If you have id listed as a required field (which I believe you need to
anyway), what do you actually get when you add a document without
nesting? What does the document echo back?
Because if you are getting a document back without id field when it is
declared required in the schema, that would be
Hi, I encountered some problems with solr-5.3.1. After I initialized the
solrcloud and set up BasicAuthPlugin and RuleBasedAuthorizationPlugin,
something wrong happened to my solrcloud. I can't Synchronization as usual.
The server log as follows:
master log
Invalid key PKIAuthenticationPlugin
si
bq: Hi - i sometimes see the too many searcher warning to since some
5.x version. The warning cloud has no autoCommit and there is only a
single process ever sending a commit, only once every 10-15 minutes
orso
This is very surprising unless your autowarming is taking 10-15
minutes, almost assured
I am looking for some good articles/guidance on how to determine number of
shards and replicas for an index?
Thanks
On 11/18/2015 9:02 PM, Troy Edwards wrote:
> I am looking for some good articles/guidance on how to determine number of
> shards and replicas for an index?
The long version:
https://lucidworks.com/blog/sizing-hardware-in-the-abstract-why-we-dont-have-a-definitive-answer/
The short version:
Ther
1. No more than 100 million documents per shard.
2. Number of replicas to meet your query load and to allow for the
possibility that a replica might go down. 2 or 3, maybe 4.
3. Proof of concept implementation to validate the number of documents that
will query well for a given number of documents
Hi Craig,
Just to be sure that you're using the feature as it should be used, can you
outline what is it that you're trying to do here? There are a few things
that aren't clear to me here, e.g. I see permissions for the /admin handler
for a particular collection.
What are the kind of permissions
41 matches
Mail list logo
