applicability of schema on document

2014-09-27 Thread Anurag Sharma 
I am trying to understand how the schema and it's field types gets applied
to a document. Is it based on a document Id e.g. how to specify solr to
store fields like age as integer, dateofbirth as date but not as a string
or vice versa. Also, is it possible to change the field type at runtime?

Direct update using below command adds the values even when the id doesn't
exist:
curl http://localhost:8983/solr/update\?commit\=true -H
'Content-type:application/json' -d '[{"dob": {"add":
["2014-02-12T12:00:00Z", "2014-07-16T12:00:00Z"]}, "id": }]'
My doubts in the above scenario are:

   - Is it taking some default types based on parsed values?
   - Is it also possible to store multiple types in a single field?
   - What are the rules for schema less doc

Above scenario is tried using solr.war in example/webapps Following are
multiple schema files in example directory
./example/example-DIH/solr/db/conf/schema.xml
./example/example-DIH/solr/mail/conf/schema.xml
./example/example-DIH/solr/rss/conf/schema.xml
./example/example-DIH/solr/solr/conf/schema.xml
./example/example-DIH/solr/tika/conf/schema.xml
./example/example-schemaless/solr/collection1/conf/schema.xml
./example/multicore/core0/conf/schema.xml
./example/multicore/core1/conf/schema.xml
./example/solr/collection1/conf/schema.xml


Any documentation or unit tests describing the flow, creating and using the
schema will be helpful.

Thanks
Anurag

demo app explaining solr features

2014-09-27 Thread Anurag Sharma 
I am wondering if there is any demo app that can demonstrate all the
features/capabilities of solr. My intention is to understand, use and play
around all the features supported by solr.

Also looking to explore how solr fits with NLP (like open-nlp), different
datastores (like cassandra, mongodb, arangoDB, couchDB), ML engines(mahout,
prediction.io etc) and caching servers (redis, memcache).

Thanks
Anurag

Re: java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "string;#-6.872515521, 53.28853084"

2014-09-27 Thread Jack Krupansky 
And how is the schema field declared. Seems like it's a TrieDoubleField, 
which should be a simple floating point value. You should be using the 
spatial field types.


-- Jack Krupansky

-Original Message- 
From: Erick Erickson

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 12:20 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: 
"string;#-6.872515521, 53.28853084"


It looks like the data is, literally,
string;#-6.872515521, 53.28853084

or maybe
#-6.872515521, 53.28853084

either way the data isn't in anything like the format expected.
Of course I may be mis-reading this, but it looks like your
input process isn't doing what you expect.

How are you sending the data to Solr?

Best,
Erick

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:00 AM, lalitjangra 
wrote:


Hi,

I am trying to index latitude and longitude data into solr but getting
error
as below.

ERROR - 2014-09-26 13:44:16.503; org.apache.solr.common.SolrException;
org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: ERROR:
[doc=http://testirishwaterportal/sites/am/ass/asi/agg/ami/Lists/Waste
Waste
Water Pumping Station/DispForm.aspx?ID=841] Error adding field
'gis_x0020_coordinate'='string;#-6.872515521, 53.28853084' msg=For input
string: "string;#-6.872515521, 53.28853084"
at
org.apache.solr.update.DocumentBuilder.toDocument(DocumentBuilder.java:167)
at

org.apache.solr.update.AddUpdateCommand.getLuceneDocument(AddUpdateCommand.java:77)
at

org.apache.solr.update.DirectUpdateHandler2.addDoc(DirectUpdateHandler2.java:215)
at

org.apache.solr.update.processor.RunUpdateProcessor.processAdd(RunUpdateProcessorFactory.java:69)
at

org.apache.solr.update.processor.UpdateRequestProcessor.processAdd(UpdateRequestProcessor.java:51)
at

org.apache.solr.update.processor.DistributedUpdateProcessor.doLocalAdd(DistributedUpdateProcessor.java:569)
at

org.apache.solr.update.processor.DistributedUpdateProcessor.versionAdd(DistributedUpdateProcessor.java:705)
at

org.apache.solr.update.processor.DistributedUpdateProcessor.processAdd(DistributedUpdateProcessor.java:435)
at

org.apache.solr.update.processor.LogUpdateProcessor.processAdd(LogUpdateProcessorFactory.java:100)
at

org.apache.solr.handler.extraction.ExtractingDocumentLoader.doAdd(ExtractingDocumentLoader.java:121)
at

org.apache.solr.handler.extraction.ExtractingDocumentLoader.addDoc(ExtractingDocumentLoader.java:126)
at

org.apache.solr.handler.extraction.ExtractingDocumentLoader.load(ExtractingDocumentLoader.java:228)
at

org.apache.solr.handler.ContentStreamHandlerBase.handleRequestBody(ContentStreamHandlerBase.java:74)
at

org.apache.solr.handler.RequestHandlerBase.handleRequest(RequestHandlerBase.java:135)
at

org.apache.solr.core.RequestHandlers$LazyRequestHandlerWrapper.handleRequest(RequestHandlers.java:241)
at
org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.execute(SolrCore.java:1859)
at

org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.execute(SolrDispatchFilter.java:710)
at

org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(SolrDispatchFilter.java:413)
at

org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(SolrDispatchFilter.java:197)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler$CachedChain.doFilter(ServletHandler.java:1419)
at
org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doHandle(ServletHandler.java:455)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ScopedHandler.handle(ScopedHandler.java:137)
at
org.eclipse.jetty.security.SecurityHandler.handle(SecurityHandler.java:557)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.session.SessionHandler.doHandle(SessionHandler.java:231)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.doHandle(ContextHandler.java:1075)
at
org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doScope(ServletHandler.java:384)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.session.SessionHandler.doScope(SessionHandler.java:193)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.doScope(ContextHandler.java:1009)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ScopedHandler.handle(ScopedHandler.java:135)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandlerCollection.handle(ContextHandlerCollection.java:255)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerCollection.handle(HandlerCollection.java:154)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerWrapper.handle(HandlerWrapper.java:116)
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server.handle(Server.java:368)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.AbstractHttpConnection.handleRequest(AbstractHttpConnection.java:489)
at

org.eclipse.jetty.server.BlockingHttpConnection.handleRequest(BlockingH

Expunging Deletes

2014-09-27 Thread Eric Katherman 
I'm running into memory issues and wondering if I should be using 
expungeDeletes on commits.  The server in question at the moment has 
450k documents in the collection and represents 15GB on disk.  There are 
also 700k+ "Deleted Docs" and I'm guessing that is part of the disk 
space consumption but I am not having any luck getting that cleared 
out.  I noticed the expungeDeletes=false in some of the log output 
related to commit but didn't try setting it to true yet. Will this clear 
those deleted documents and recover that space?  Or should something 
else already be managing that but maybe isn't configured correctly?


Our data is user specific data, each customer has their own database 
structure so it varies with each user.  They also add/remove data fairly 
frequently in many cases.  To compare another collection of the same 
data type, there are 1M documents and about 120k deleted docs but disk 
space is only 6.3GB.


Hoping someone can share some advice about how to manage this.

Thanks,
Eric

fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread White, Bill 
Hello,

I've attempted to figure this out from reading the documentation but
without much luck.  I looked for a comprehensive query syntax specification
(e.g., with BNF and a list of operator semantics) but I'm unable to find
such a document (does such a thing exist? or is the syntax too much of a
moving target?)

I'm using 4.6.1, if that makes a difference, though upgrading is an option
if it necessary to make this work.

I've got a multiValued field "color", which describes the colors of item in
the database.  Items can have zero or more colors.  What I want is to be
able to filter out all hits that contain colors not within a constraining
list, i.e., something like

NOT (color NOT IN ("red","yellow","green")).

So the following would be passed by the filter:
(no value for 'color')
color: red
color: red, color: green

whereas these would be excluded:
color: red, color: blue
color: magenta


Nothing I've come up with so far, e.g. -(-color: "red" -color: "green"),
seems to work.

I've also looked into using a function query but it seems to lack operators
for dealing with string multivalued fields.

Ideas?

Thanks,
Bill

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread Yonik Seeley 
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've attempted to figure this out from reading the documentation but
> without much luck.  I looked for a comprehensive query syntax specification
> (e.g., with BNF and a list of operator semantics) but I'm unable to find
> such a document (does such a thing exist? or is the syntax too much of a
> moving target?)
>
> I'm using 4.6.1, if that makes a difference, though upgrading is an option
> if it necessary to make this work.
>
> I've got a multiValued field "color", which describes the colors of item in
> the database.  Items can have zero or more colors.  What I want is to be
> able to filter out all hits that contain colors not within a constraining
> list, i.e., something like
>
> NOT (color NOT IN ("red","yellow","green")).
>
> So the following would be passed by the filter:
> (no value for 'color')
> color: red
> color: red, color: green
>
> whereas these would be excluded:
> color: red, color: blue
> color: magenta

You're looking for things that either match red, yellow, or green, or
have no color:

color:(red yellow green) OR (*:* -color:*)

-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread White, Bill 
Not just that.  I'm looking for things which match either red or yellow or
green, but do NOT match ANY other color.  I can probably drop the
requirement related to having no color.


On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've attempted to figure this out from reading the documentation but
> > without much luck.  I looked for a comprehensive query syntax
> specification
> > (e.g., with BNF and a list of operator semantics) but I'm unable to find
> > such a document (does such a thing exist? or is the syntax too much of a
> > moving target?)
> >
> > I'm using 4.6.1, if that makes a difference, though upgrading is an
> option
> > if it necessary to make this work.
> >
> > I've got a multiValued field "color", which describes the colors of item
> in
> > the database.  Items can have zero or more colors.  What I want is to be
> > able to filter out all hits that contain colors not within a constraining
> > list, i.e., something like
> >
> > NOT (color NOT IN ("red","yellow","green")).
> >
> > So the following would be passed by the filter:
> > (no value for 'color')
> > color: red
> > color: red, color: green
> >
> > whereas these would be excluded:
> > color: red, color: blue
> > color: magenta
>
> You're looking for things that either match red, yellow, or green, or
> have no color:
>
> color:(red yellow green) OR (*:* -color:*)
>
> -Yonik
> http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
> sub-facets, off-heap data
>

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread White, Bill 
Sorry, color is multivalued, so a given record might be both blue and red.
I don't want those to show up in the results.

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:

> Not just that.  I'm looking for things which match either red or yellow or
> green, but do NOT match ANY other color.  I can probably drop the
> requirement related to having no color.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Yonik Seeley 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I've attempted to figure this out from reading the documentation but
>> > without much luck.  I looked for a comprehensive query syntax
>> specification
>> > (e.g., with BNF and a list of operator semantics) but I'm unable to find
>> > such a document (does such a thing exist? or is the syntax too much of a
>> > moving target?)
>> >
>> > I'm using 4.6.1, if that makes a difference, though upgrading is an
>> option
>> > if it necessary to make this work.
>> >
>> > I've got a multiValued field "color", which describes the colors of
>> item in
>> > the database.  Items can have zero or more colors.  What I want is to be
>> > able to filter out all hits that contain colors not within a
>> constraining
>> > list, i.e., something like
>> >
>> > NOT (color NOT IN ("red","yellow","green")).
>> >
>> > So the following would be passed by the filter:
>> > (no value for 'color')
>> > color: red
>> > color: red, color: green
>> >
>> > whereas these would be excluded:
>> > color: red, color: blue
>> > color: magenta
>>
>> You're looking for things that either match red, yellow, or green, or
>> have no color:
>>
>> color:(red yellow green) OR (*:* -color:*)
>>
>> -Yonik
>> http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
>> sub-facets, off-heap data
>>
>
>

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread Yonik Seeley 
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> Sorry, color is multivalued, so a given record might be both blue and red.
> I don't want those to show up in the results.

I think the only way currently (out of the box) is to enumerate the
other possible colors to exclude them.

color:(red yellow green)  -color:(blue cyan xxx)

-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data



> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
>
>> Not just that.  I'm looking for things which match either red or yellow or
>> green, but do NOT match ANY other color.  I can probably drop the
>> requirement related to having no color.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Yonik Seeley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
>>> > Hello,
>>> >
>>> > I've attempted to figure this out from reading the documentation but
>>> > without much luck.  I looked for a comprehensive query syntax
>>> specification
>>> > (e.g., with BNF and a list of operator semantics) but I'm unable to find
>>> > such a document (does such a thing exist? or is the syntax too much of a
>>> > moving target?)
>>> >
>>> > I'm using 4.6.1, if that makes a difference, though upgrading is an
>>> option
>>> > if it necessary to make this work.
>>> >
>>> > I've got a multiValued field "color", which describes the colors of
>>> item in
>>> > the database.  Items can have zero or more colors.  What I want is to be
>>> > able to filter out all hits that contain colors not within a
>>> constraining
>>> > list, i.e., something like
>>> >
>>> > NOT (color NOT IN ("red","yellow","green")).
>>> >
>>> > So the following would be passed by the filter:
>>> > (no value for 'color')
>>> > color: red
>>> > color: red, color: green
>>> >
>>> > whereas these would be excluded:
>>> > color: red, color: blue
>>> > color: magenta
>>>
>>> You're looking for things that either match red, yellow, or green, or
>>> have no color:
>>>
>>> color:(red yellow green) OR (*:* -color:*)
>>>
>>> -Yonik
>>> http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
>>> sub-facets, off-heap data
>>>
>>
>>

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread White, Bill 
Hmm, that won't work since color is free-form.

Is there a way to invoke (via fq) a user-defined function (hopefully
defined as part of the fq syntax, but alternatively, written in Java) and
have it applied to the resultset?

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> > Sorry, color is multivalued, so a given record might be both blue and
> red.
> > I don't want those to show up in the results.
>
> I think the only way currently (out of the box) is to enumerate the
> other possible colors to exclude them.
>
> color:(red yellow green)  -color:(blue cyan xxx)
>
> -Yonik
> http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
> sub-facets, off-heap data
>
>
>
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> >
> >> Not just that.  I'm looking for things which match either red or yellow
> or
> >> green, but do NOT match ANY other color.  I can probably drop the
> >> requirement related to having no color.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Yonik Seeley 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> >>> > Hello,
> >>> >
> >>> > I've attempted to figure this out from reading the documentation but
> >>> > without much luck.  I looked for a comprehensive query syntax
> >>> specification
> >>> > (e.g., with BNF and a list of operator semantics) but I'm unable to
> find
> >>> > such a document (does such a thing exist? or is the syntax too much
> of a
> >>> > moving target?)
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm using 4.6.1, if that makes a difference, though upgrading is an
> >>> option
> >>> > if it necessary to make this work.
> >>> >
> >>> > I've got a multiValued field "color", which describes the colors of
> >>> item in
> >>> > the database.  Items can have zero or more colors.  What I want is
> to be
> >>> > able to filter out all hits that contain colors not within a
> >>> constraining
> >>> > list, i.e., something like
> >>> >
> >>> > NOT (color NOT IN ("red","yellow","green")).
> >>> >
> >>> > So the following would be passed by the filter:
> >>> > (no value for 'color')
> >>> > color: red
> >>> > color: red, color: green
> >>> >
> >>> > whereas these would be excluded:
> >>> > color: red, color: blue
> >>> > color: magenta
> >>>
> >>> You're looking for things that either match red, yellow, or green, or
> >>> have no color:
> >>>
> >>> color:(red yellow green) OR (*:* -color:*)
> >>>
> >>> -Yonik
> >>> http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
> >>> sub-facets, off-heap data
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread Mikhail Khludnev 
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:

> but do NOT match ANY other color.


Bill, I miss the whole picture, it's worth to rephrase the problem in one
sentence.
But regarding the quote above, you can try to use exclusive ranges
https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Range_Searches
fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
just don't forget to build ranges alphabetically

-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
Principal Engineer,
Grid Dynamics

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread White, Bill 
OK, let me try phrasing it better.

How do I exclude from search, any result which contains any value for
multivalued field 'color' which is not within a given "constraint set"
(e.g., "red", "green", "yellow", "burnt sienna"), given that I do not what
any of the other possible values of 'color' are?

In pseudocode:

for all x in result.color
if x not in ("red","green","yellow", "burnt sienna")
filter out result

I don't see how range queries would work since I have no control over the
possible values of 'color', e.g., there could be a valid color "lemon
yellow" between "green" and "red", and I don't want a result which has
(color: red, color: "lemon yellow")

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
>
> > but do NOT match ANY other color.
>
>
> Bill, I miss the whole picture, it's worth to rephrase the problem in one
> sentence.
> But regarding the quote above, you can try to use exclusive ranges
>
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Range_Searches
> fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> just don't forget to build ranges alphabetically
>
> --
> Sincerely yours
> Mikhail Khludnev
> Principal Engineer,
> Grid Dynamics
>
> 
> 
>

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread Yonik Seeley 
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:46 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> Hmm, that won't work since color is free-form.
>
> Is there a way to invoke (via fq) a user-defined function (hopefully
> defined as part of the fq syntax, but alternatively, written in Java) and
> have it applied to the resultset?

https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPlugins#QParserPlugin

-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread White, Bill 
Thanks!

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Yonik Seeley  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:46 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> > Hmm, that won't work since color is free-form.
> >
> > Is there a way to invoke (via fq) a user-defined function (hopefully
> > defined as part of the fq syntax, but alternatively, written in Java) and
> > have it applied to the resultset?
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPlugins#QParserPlugin
>
> -Yonik
> http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
> sub-facets, off-heap data
>

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread Mikhail Khludnev 
indeed!
the exclusive range {green TO red} matches to the "lemon yellow"
hence, the negation suppresses it from appearing
fq=-color:{green TO red}
then you need to suppress eg black and white also
fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})

I have no control over the
> possible values of 'color',

You don't need to control possible values, you just suppressing any values
beside of the given green and red.
Mind that either green or red passes that negation of exclusive ranges
disjunction.


On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:15 AM, White, Bill  wrote:

> OK, let me try phrasing it better.
>
> How do I exclude from search, any result which contains any value for
> multivalued field 'color' which is not within a given "constraint set"
> (e.g., "red", "green", "yellow", "burnt sienna"), given that I do not what
> any of the other possible values of 'color' are?
>
> In pseudocode:
>
> for all x in result.color
> if x not in ("red","green","yellow", "burnt sienna")
> filter out result
>
> I don't see how range queries would work since I have no control over the
> possible values of 'color', e.g., there could be a valid color "lemon
> yellow" between "green" and "red", and I don't want a result which has
> (color: red, color: "lemon yellow")
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> >
> > > but do NOT match ANY other color.
> >
> >
> > Bill, I miss the whole picture, it's worth to rephrase the problem in one
> > sentence.
> > But regarding the quote above, you can try to use exclusive ranges
> >
> >
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Range_Searches
> > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> > just don't forget to build ranges alphabetically
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours
> > Mikhail Khludnev
> > Principal Engineer,
> > Grid Dynamics
> >
> > 
> > 
> >
>



-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
Principal Engineer,
Grid Dynamics

Re: Append children documents for nested document

2014-09-27 Thread Mikhail Khludnev 
It's never possible. You have to reindex whole block.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:20 PM, bradhill99  wrote:

> Anyone can help me about this? or Solr not support adding additional
> children
> documents to existed parent document?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Append-children-documents-for-nested-document-tp4157087p4159152.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>



-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
Principal Engineer,
Grid Dynamics

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread Yonik Seeley 
Heh... very clever, Mikhail!

-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data


On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Mikhail Khludnev
 wrote:
> indeed!
> the exclusive range {green TO red} matches to the "lemon yellow"
> hence, the negation suppresses it from appearing
> fq=-color:{green TO red}
> then you need to suppress eg black and white also
> fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
>
> I have no control over the
>> possible values of 'color',
>
> You don't need to control possible values, you just suppressing any values
> beside of the given green and red.
> Mind that either green or red passes that negation of exclusive ranges
> disjunction.
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:15 AM, White, Bill  wrote:
>
>> OK, let me try phrasing it better.
>>
>> How do I exclude from search, any result which contains any value for
>> multivalued field 'color' which is not within a given "constraint set"
>> (e.g., "red", "green", "yellow", "burnt sienna"), given that I do not what
>> any of the other possible values of 'color' are?
>>
>> In pseudocode:
>>
>> for all x in result.color
>> if x not in ("red","green","yellow", "burnt sienna")
>> filter out result
>>
>> I don't see how range queries would work since I have no control over the
>> possible values of 'color', e.g., there could be a valid color "lemon
>> yellow" between "green" and "red", and I don't want a result which has
>> (color: red, color: "lemon yellow")
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
>> mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
>> >
>> > > but do NOT match ANY other color.
>> >
>> >
>> > Bill, I miss the whole picture, it's worth to rephrase the problem in one
>> > sentence.
>> > But regarding the quote above, you can try to use exclusive ranges
>> >
>> >
>> https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Range_Searches
>> > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
>> > just don't forget to build ranges alphabetically
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sincerely yours
>> > Mikhail Khludnev
>> > Principal Engineer,
>> > Grid Dynamics
>> >
>> > 
>> > 
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours
> Mikhail Khludnev
> Principal Engineer,
> Grid Dynamics
>
> 
>

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread White, Bill 
Hmm.  If I understand correctly this builds a set out of open intervals
(exclusive ranges), that's a great idea!

It doesn't seem to work for me, though;  fq=-color:({* TO red} {red TO *})
is giving me results with color="burnt sienna"

The field is defined as 

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:

> indeed!
> the exclusive range {green TO red} matches to the "lemon yellow"
> hence, the negation suppresses it from appearing
> fq=-color:{green TO red}
> then you need to suppress eg black and white also
> fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
>
> I have no control over the
> > possible values of 'color',
>
> You don't need to control possible values, you just suppressing any values
> beside of the given green and red.
> Mind that either green or red passes that negation of exclusive ranges
> disjunction.
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:15 AM, White, Bill  wrote:
>
> > OK, let me try phrasing it better.
> >
> > How do I exclude from search, any result which contains any value for
> > multivalued field 'color' which is not within a given "constraint set"
> > (e.g., "red", "green", "yellow", "burnt sienna"), given that I do not
> what
> > any of the other possible values of 'color' are?
> >
> > In pseudocode:
> >
> > for all x in result.color
> > if x not in ("red","green","yellow", "burnt sienna")
> > filter out result
> >
> > I don't see how range queries would work since I have no control over the
> > possible values of 'color', e.g., there could be a valid color "lemon
> > yellow" between "green" and "red", and I don't want a result which has
> > (color: red, color: "lemon yellow")
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> > mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, White, Bill  wrote:
> > >
> > > > but do NOT match ANY other color.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill, I miss the whole picture, it's worth to rephrase the problem in
> one
> > > sentence.
> > > But regarding the quote above, you can try to use exclusive ranges
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Range_Searches
> > > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> > > just don't forget to build ranges alphabetically
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours
> > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > Principal Engineer,
> > > Grid Dynamics
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours
> Mikhail Khludnev
> Principal Engineer,
> Grid Dynamics
>
> 
> 
>

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread Mikhail Khludnev 
hm. try to convert it to query q=-color:({* TO red} {red TO *}) and check
the explanation from debugQuery=true

I tried to play with my index

  "q": "*:*",
  "facet.field": "swatchColors_string_mv",
  "fq": "-swatchColors_string_mv:({* TO RED} {RED TO *})",

I got the following facets:

  "facet_fields": {
  "swatchColors_string_mv": [
"RED",
122,
"BLACK",
0,
"BLUE",
0,
"BROWN",
0,
"GREEN",
0,

so, it works for me at least...



On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:54 AM, White, Bill  wrote:

> Hmm.  If I understand correctly this builds a set out of open intervals
> (exclusive ranges), that's a great idea!
>
> It doesn't seem to work for me, though;  fq=-color:({* TO red} {red TO *})
> is giving me results with color="burnt sienna"
>
> The field is defined as  stored="true" multiValued="true" />
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
>
> > indeed!
> > the exclusive range {green TO red} matches to the "lemon yellow"
> > hence, the negation suppresses it from appearing
> > fq=-color:{green TO red}
> > then you need to suppress eg black and white also
> > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> >
> > I have no control over the
> > > possible values of 'color',
> >
> > You don't need to control possible values, you just suppressing any
> values
> > beside of the given green and red.
> > Mind that either green or red passes that negation of exclusive ranges
> > disjunction.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:15 AM, White, Bill  wrote:
> >
> > > OK, let me try phrasing it better.
> > >
> > > How do I exclude from search, any result which contains any value for
> > > multivalued field 'color' which is not within a given "constraint set"
> > > (e.g., "red", "green", "yellow", "burnt sienna"), given that I do not
> > what
> > > any of the other possible values of 'color' are?
> > >
> > > In pseudocode:
> > >
> > > for all x in result.color
> > > if x not in ("red","green","yellow", "burnt sienna")
> > > filter out result
> > >
> > > I don't see how range queries would work since I have no control over
> the
> > > possible values of 'color', e.g., there could be a valid color "lemon
> > > yellow" between "green" and "red", and I don't want a result which has
> > > (color: red, color: "lemon yellow")
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> > > mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, White, Bill 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > but do NOT match ANY other color.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bill, I miss the whole picture, it's worth to rephrase the problem in
> > one
> > > > sentence.
> > > > But regarding the quote above, you can try to use exclusive ranges
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Range_Searches
> > > > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> > > > just don't forget to build ranges alphabetically
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sincerely yours
> > > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > > Principal Engineer,
> > > > Grid Dynamics
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours
> > Mikhail Khludnev
> > Principal Engineer,
> > Grid Dynamics
> >
> > 
> > 
> >
>



-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
Principal Engineer,
Grid Dynamics

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread White, Bill 
It worked for me once I changed to

-color:({* TO red} OR {red TO *})

I'm not sure why the OR is needed, maybe it's my version? (4.6.1)

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:

> hm. try to convert it to query q=-color:({* TO red} {red TO *}) and check
> the explanation from debugQuery=true
>
> I tried to play with my index
>
>   "q": "*:*",
>   "facet.field": "swatchColors_string_mv",
>   "fq": "-swatchColors_string_mv:({* TO RED} {RED TO *})",
>
> I got the following facets:
>
>   "facet_fields": {
>   "swatchColors_string_mv": [
> "RED",
> 122,
> "BLACK",
> 0,
> "BLUE",
> 0,
> "BROWN",
> 0,
> "GREEN",
> 0,
>
> so, it works for me at least...
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:54 AM, White, Bill  wrote:
>
> > Hmm.  If I understand correctly this builds a set out of open intervals
> > (exclusive ranges), that's a great idea!
> >
> > It doesn't seem to work for me, though;  fq=-color:({* TO red} {red TO
> *})
> > is giving me results with color="burnt sienna"
> >
> > The field is defined as  > stored="true" multiValued="true" />
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> > mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> >
> > > indeed!
> > > the exclusive range {green TO red} matches to the "lemon yellow"
> > > hence, the negation suppresses it from appearing
> > > fq=-color:{green TO red}
> > > then you need to suppress eg black and white also
> > > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> > >
> > > I have no control over the
> > > > possible values of 'color',
> > >
> > > You don't need to control possible values, you just suppressing any
> > values
> > > beside of the given green and red.
> > > Mind that either green or red passes that negation of exclusive ranges
> > > disjunction.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:15 AM, White, Bill  wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, let me try phrasing it better.
> > > >
> > > > How do I exclude from search, any result which contains any value for
> > > > multivalued field 'color' which is not within a given "constraint
> set"
> > > > (e.g., "red", "green", "yellow", "burnt sienna"), given that I do not
> > > what
> > > > any of the other possible values of 'color' are?
> > > >
> > > > In pseudocode:
> > > >
> > > > for all x in result.color
> > > > if x not in ("red","green","yellow", "burnt sienna")
> > > > filter out result
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how range queries would work since I have no control over
> > the
> > > > possible values of 'color', e.g., there could be a valid color "lemon
> > > > yellow" between "green" and "red", and I don't want a result which
> has
> > > > (color: red, color: "lemon yellow")
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> > > > mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, White, Bill 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > but do NOT match ANY other color.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill, I miss the whole picture, it's worth to rephrase the problem
> in
> > > one
> > > > > sentence.
> > > > > But regarding the quote above, you can try to use exclusive ranges
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Range_Searches
> > > > > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> > > > > just don't forget to build ranges alphabetically
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sincerely yours
> > > > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > > > Principal Engineer,
> > > > > Grid Dynamics
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours
> > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > Principal Engineer,
> > > Grid Dynamics
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours
> Mikhail Khludnev
> Principal Engineer,
> Grid Dynamics
>
> 
> 
>

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread Mikhail Khludnev 
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SchemaXml#Default_query_parser_operator ?
once again, debugQuery=true perfectly explains what's going on with q.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:24 AM, White, Bill  wrote:

> It worked for me once I changed to
>
> -color:({* TO red} OR {red TO *})
>
> I'm not sure why the OR is needed, maybe it's my version? (4.6.1)
>
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
>
> > hm. try to convert it to query q=-color:({* TO red} {red TO *}) and check
> > the explanation from debugQuery=true
> >
> > I tried to play with my index
> >
> >   "q": "*:*",
> >   "facet.field": "swatchColors_string_mv",
> >   "fq": "-swatchColors_string_mv:({* TO RED} {RED TO *})",
> >
> > I got the following facets:
> >
> >   "facet_fields": {
> >   "swatchColors_string_mv": [
> > "RED",
> > 122,
> > "BLACK",
> > 0,
> > "BLUE",
> > 0,
> > "BROWN",
> > 0,
> > "GREEN",
> > 0,
> >
> > so, it works for me at least...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:54 AM, White, Bill  wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm.  If I understand correctly this builds a set out of open intervals
> > > (exclusive ranges), that's a great idea!
> > >
> > > It doesn't seem to work for me, though;  fq=-color:({* TO red} {red TO
> > *})
> > > is giving me results with color="burnt sienna"
> > >
> > > The field is defined as  indexed="true"
> > > stored="true" multiValued="true" />
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> > > mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > indeed!
> > > > the exclusive range {green TO red} matches to the "lemon yellow"
> > > > hence, the negation suppresses it from appearing
> > > > fq=-color:{green TO red}
> > > > then you need to suppress eg black and white also
> > > > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> > > >
> > > > I have no control over the
> > > > > possible values of 'color',
> > > >
> > > > You don't need to control possible values, you just suppressing any
> > > values
> > > > beside of the given green and red.
> > > > Mind that either green or red passes that negation of exclusive
> ranges
> > > > disjunction.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:15 AM, White, Bill 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > OK, let me try phrasing it better.
> > > > >
> > > > > How do I exclude from search, any result which contains any value
> for
> > > > > multivalued field 'color' which is not within a given "constraint
> > set"
> > > > > (e.g., "red", "green", "yellow", "burnt sienna"), given that I do
> not
> > > > what
> > > > > any of the other possible values of 'color' are?
> > > > >
> > > > > In pseudocode:
> > > > >
> > > > > for all x in result.color
> > > > > if x not in ("red","green","yellow", "burnt sienna")
> > > > > filter out result
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see how range queries would work since I have no control
> over
> > > the
> > > > > possible values of 'color', e.g., there could be a valid color
> "lemon
> > > > > yellow" between "green" and "red", and I don't want a result which
> > has
> > > > > (color: red, color: "lemon yellow")
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> > > > > mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, White, Bill 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > but do NOT match ANY other color.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill, I miss the whole picture, it's worth to rephrase the
> problem
> > in
> > > > one
> > > > > > sentence.
> > > > > > But regarding the quote above, you can try to use exclusive
> ranges
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Range_Searches
> > > > > > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> > > > > > just don't forget to build ranges alphabetically
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sincerely yours
> > > > > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > > > > Principal Engineer,
> > > > > > Grid Dynamics
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sincerely yours
> > > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > > Principal Engineer,
> > > > Grid Dynamics
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sincerely yours
> > Mikhail Khludnev
> > Principal Engineer,
> > Grid Dynamics
> >
> > 
> > 
> >
>



-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
Principal Engineer,
Grid Dynamics

Re: fq syntax for requiring all multiValued field values to be within a list?

2014-09-27 Thread White, Bill 
Yes, that was it, thank you!

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:

> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SchemaXml#Default_query_parser_operator ?
> once again, debugQuery=true perfectly explains what's going on with q.
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 1:24 AM, White, Bill  wrote:
>
> > It worked for me once I changed to
> >
> > -color:({* TO red} OR {red TO *})
> >
> > I'm not sure why the OR is needed, maybe it's my version? (4.6.1)
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> > mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> >
> > > hm. try to convert it to query q=-color:({* TO red} {red TO *}) and
> check
> > > the explanation from debugQuery=true
> > >
> > > I tried to play with my index
> > >
> > >   "q": "*:*",
> > >   "facet.field": "swatchColors_string_mv",
> > >   "fq": "-swatchColors_string_mv:({* TO RED} {RED TO *})",
> > >
> > > I got the following facets:
> > >
> > >   "facet_fields": {
> > >   "swatchColors_string_mv": [
> > > "RED",
> > > 122,
> > > "BLACK",
> > > 0,
> > > "BLUE",
> > > 0,
> > > "BROWN",
> > > 0,
> > > "GREEN",
> > > 0,
> > >
> > > so, it works for me at least...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:54 AM, White, Bill  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hmm.  If I understand correctly this builds a set out of open
> intervals
> > > > (exclusive ranges), that's a great idea!
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't seem to work for me, though;  fq=-color:({* TO red} {red
> TO
> > > *})
> > > > is giving me results with color="burnt sienna"
> > > >
> > > > The field is defined as  > indexed="true"
> > > > stored="true" multiValued="true" />
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> > > > mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > indeed!
> > > > > the exclusive range {green TO red} matches to the "lemon yellow"
> > > > > hence, the negation suppresses it from appearing
> > > > > fq=-color:{green TO red}
> > > > > then you need to suppress eg black and white also
> > > > > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no control over the
> > > > > > possible values of 'color',
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't need to control possible values, you just suppressing any
> > > > values
> > > > > beside of the given green and red.
> > > > > Mind that either green or red passes that negation of exclusive
> > ranges
> > > > > disjunction.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:15 AM, White, Bill 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > OK, let me try phrasing it better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How do I exclude from search, any result which contains any value
> > for
> > > > > > multivalued field 'color' which is not within a given "constraint
> > > set"
> > > > > > (e.g., "red", "green", "yellow", "burnt sienna"), given that I do
> > not
> > > > > what
> > > > > > any of the other possible values of 'color' are?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In pseudocode:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > for all x in result.color
> > > > > > if x not in ("red","green","yellow", "burnt sienna")
> > > > > > filter out result
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see how range queries would work since I have no control
> > over
> > > > the
> > > > > > possible values of 'color', e.g., there could be a valid color
> > "lemon
> > > > > > yellow" between "green" and "red", and I don't want a result
> which
> > > has
> > > > > > (color: red, color: "lemon yellow")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Mikhail Khludnev <
> > > > > > mkhlud...@griddynamics.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, White, Bill  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > but do NOT match ANY other color.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bill, I miss the whole picture, it's worth to rephrase the
> > problem
> > > in
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > sentence.
> > > > > > > But regarding the quote above, you can try to use exclusive
> > ranges
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/queryparser/org/apache/lucene/queryparser/classic/package-summary.html#Range_Searches
> > > > > > > fq=-color:({* TO green} {green TO red} {red TO *})
> > > > > > > just don't forget to build ranges alphabetically
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sincerely yours
> > > > > > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > > > > > Principal Engineer,
> > > > > > > Grid Dynamics
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sincerely yours
> > > > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > > > Principal Engineer,
> > > > > Grid Dynamics
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours
> > > Mikhail Khludnev
> > > Principal Engineer,
> > > Grid Dynamics
> > >
> > >

SolrCould read-only replicas

2014-09-27 Thread Sandeep Tikoo 
Hi-

I have been reading up on SolrCloud and it seems that it is not possible to 
have a cross-datacenter read-only slave anymore but wanted to ask here to be 
sure.
We currently have a pre Solr 4.0 installation with the master instance in our 
US mid-west datacenter. The datacenter in Europe has read-replicas which pull 
data using solr.ReplicationHandler. We wanted to upgrade to SolrCloud. As far 
as I have been able to figure out, with SolrCloud you cannot have a read-only 
replica anymore. A replica has to be able to become a leader and writes against 
all replicas for a shard have to succeed. Because of the a strong consistency 
model across replicas, it seems that replicas cannot be across datacenters 
anymore.

So my question is, how can we have a read-ony replica in a remote datacenter in 
Solr 4.0+ similar to pre Solr 4.0? Is it not possible anymore without doing it 
all yourself?

cheers,
Tikoo

Re: SolrCould read-only replicas

2014-09-27 Thread Erick Erickson 
Well, replicas _can_ cross data centers, there's nothing explicitly
preventing it. But the network latency will cause "interesting" problems,
not to mention ZooKeeper Quorum sensing being challenging. But your
description is accurate, there's no such thing as a "read only replica" in
SolrCloud.

That said, if you're just looking at doing the same thing you're doing pre
Solr 4.0, then you can just go ahead and set it up like your older version;
replication still works just like it did before, and it's not going away.
In fact, it's used in SolrCloud to handle replica syncing under certain
circumstances.

SolrCloud is an alternate model that overcomes some of the pain points of
managing (particularly sharded) installations that have things like NRT
requirements etc. But there's nothing in Solr 4.x that _requires_ that you
operate in "cloud mode", you can use master/slave just like 3.x for
instance if it suits your problem better.

Best,
Erick

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Sandeep Tikoo 
wrote:

> Hi-
>
> I have been reading up on SolrCloud and it seems that it is not possible
> to have a cross-datacenter read-only slave anymore but wanted to ask here
> to be sure.
> We currently have a pre Solr 4.0 installation with the master instance in
> our US mid-west datacenter. The datacenter in Europe has read-replicas
> which pull data using solr.ReplicationHandler. We wanted to upgrade to
> SolrCloud. As far as I have been able to figure out, with SolrCloud you
> cannot have a read-only replica anymore. A replica has to be able to become
> a leader and writes against all replicas for a shard have to succeed.
> Because of the a strong consistency model across replicas, it seems that
> replicas cannot be across datacenters anymore.
>
> So my question is, how can we have a read-ony replica in a remote
> datacenter in Solr 4.0+ similar to pre Solr 4.0? Is it not possible anymore
> without doing it all yourself?
>
> cheers,
> Tikoo
>
>

Re: demo app explaining solr features

2014-09-27 Thread Mikhail Khludnev 
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Anurag Sharma  wrote:

> I am wondering if there is any demo app that can demonstrate all the
> features/capabilities of solr. My intention is to understand, use and play
> around all the features supported by solr.
>

https://lucene.apache.org/solr/4_10_0/tutorial.html


-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
Principal Engineer,
Grid Dynamics