RE: Posting PDF,DOC,TXT - Hijacked thread
> > There's no way to do that directly at the moment, you'll need > to convert them to the XML format that Solr expects. > Would someone be willing to point me to a resource that describes this format? Cheers! Bill Bill Tantzen University of Minnesota Libraries [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-626-9949 (office) 612-325-1777 (cell) I guess the man's a genius, but what a dirty mind he has, hasn't he? -- Nora Joyce
RE: Posting PDF,DOC,TXT - Hijacked thread
Thank you - I don't know how I missed that! Bill Tantzen University of Minnesota Libraries [EMAIL PROTECTED] 612-626-9949 (office) 612-325-1777 (cell) I guess the man's a genius, but what a dirty mind he has, hasn't he? -- Nora Joyce > -Original Message- > From: Greg Ludington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:04 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Posting PDF,DOC,TXT - Hijacked thread > > This page on the wiki is probably your best place to start: > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateXmlMessages > > -Greg > > On 4/6/07, Bill Tantzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > There's no way to do that directly at the moment, you'll need to > > > convert them to the XML format that Solr expects. > > > > > > > Would someone be willing to point me to a resource that > describes this > > format? > > > > Cheers! > > Bill > > > > Bill Tantzen > > University of Minnesota Libraries > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 612-626-9949 (office) 612-325-1777 (cell) > > > > > > I guess the man's a genius, but what > > a dirty mind he has, hasn't he? -- Nora Joyce > > > > >
RE: Solr logo poll
I like A. It's a bit more serious/professional looking. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Yonik Seeley > Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:52 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Solr logo poll > > Quick poll... Solr 2.1 release planning is underway, and a > new logo may be a part of that. > What "form" of logo do you prefer, A or B? There may be > further tweaks to these pictures, but I'd like to get a sense > of what the user community likes. > > A) > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12349897/logo- > solr-d.jpg > > B) > http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12353535/12353 > 535_solr-nick.gif > > Just respond to this thread with your preference. > > -Yonik >
strange results from lucene
Hi all!
I have a simple java search client with which I am querying the index
created by solr. Most of the time, I am seeing consistent results - in
other words, when my query is 'title:dog' with my client, I get 46 matching
documents, and when I have a 'q=title:dog' in the solr url, I also get 46
matching documents as I would expect.
However, when I search with 'q=ethics' in solr, I get almost 10,000 matches.
With my client, I get 0. What is going on here? Is the clue here that the
word 'ethics' appears with relatively high frequency?
The simple client I refer to looks like so:
public class SolrSearch {
private static String indexDir =
"/usr/local/apache-tomcat-5.5.20/conf/solr/data/index";
//
public static void main( String[] args ) throws IOException {
IndexSearcher searcher = new IndexSearcher( indexDir );
Query query = new TermQuery( new Term( args[0], args[1] ) );
System.out.println ( "query: " + query.toString() );
Hits hits = searcher.search( query );
System.out.println( "search for " + args[1] + " within " + args[0]
);
System.out.println( hits.length() + " matching entries" );
}
If anyone can help me see the error of my ways, I will appreciate it!
Cheers,
Bill
RE: strange results from lucene
Thanks to all that responded! This did the trick. I used admin/analysis.jsp to determine how solr indexed my data and how solr parses my query. I used a QueryParser and applied the same filters to my query, and now my results match exactly. Thanks again! > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Bertrand Delacretaz > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:00 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: strange results from lucene > > On 4/17/07, Bill Tantzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ...However, when I search with 'q=ethics' in solr, I get > almost 10,000 matches. > > With my client, I get 0 > > What kind of analyzer do you use when indexing that field? If > you have a stemmer, for example, "ethics" might be indexed > without the ending "s". > > The best way to debug such problems is with the analyzer admin tool: > http://localhost:8983/solr/admin/analysis.jsp - that page > will show you how your field is processed while indexing. > > HTH, > -Bertrand >
problems with indexing documents
In a legacy application using Solr 4.1 and solrj, I have always been able to add documents with TrieDateField types using java.util.Date objects, for instance, doc.addField ( "date", new java.util.Date() ); having recently upgraded to Solr 7.7, and updating my schema to leverage DatePointField as my type, that code no longer works, it throws an exception with an error like: Invalid Date String: 'Sun Jul 31 19:00:00 CDT 2016' I understand that this String is not what solr expects, but in lieu of formatting the correct String, is there no longer a way to pass in a simple Date object? Was there some kind of implicit conversion taking place earlier that is no longer happening? In fact, in the some of the example code that come with the solr distribution, (SolrExampleTests.java), document timestamp fields are added using the same AddField call I am attempting to use, so I am very confused. Thanks for any advice! Regards, Bill
Re: problems with indexing documents
Right, as Mark said, this is how the dates were indexed previously. However, instead of passing in the actual String, we passed a java.util.Date object which was automagically converted to the correct string. Now (the code on our end has not changed), solr throws an exception because the string it sees is of the form 'Sun Jul 31 19:00:00 CDT 2016' -- (which I believe is the Date.toString() result) instead of the DatePointField or TrieDateField format. ~~ Bill On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 8:44 PM Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > Previously, did you index the date in the same format as you are using now, > or in the Solr format of "-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ"? > > Regards, > Edwin > > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 00:32, Bill Tantzen wrote: > > > In a legacy application using Solr 4.1 and solrj, I have always been > > able to add documents with TrieDateField types using java.util.Date > > objects, for instance, > > > > doc.addField ( "date", new java.util.Date() ); > > > > having recently upgraded to Solr 7.7, and updating my schema to > > leverage DatePointField as my type, that code no longer works, it > > throws an exception with an error like: > > > > Invalid Date String: 'Sun Jul 31 19:00:00 CDT 2016' > > > > I understand that this String is not what solr expects, but in lieu of > > formatting the correct String, is there no longer a way to pass in a > > simple Date object? Was there some kind of implicit conversion taking > > place earlier that is no longer happening? > > > > In fact, in the some of the example code that come with the solr > > distribution, (SolrExampleTests.java), document timestamp fields are > > added using the same AddField call I am attempting to use, so I am > > very confused. > > > > Thanks for any advice! > > > > Regards, > > Bill > > -- Human wheels spin round and round While the clock keeps the pace... -- John Mellencamp Bill TantzenUniversity of Minnesota Libraries 612-626-9949 (U of M)612-325-1777 (cell)
