Re: Unsubscribe me

2015-05-30 Thread Lalit Kumar 4 
Please unsubscribe me as well

On May 30, 2015 15:23, Neha Jatav  wrote:
Unsubscribe me

Re: Performance issues

2011-11-20 Thread Lalit Kumar 4 

The search with couple of parameters bringing 650 counts(out of 2500 approx) 
and taking around 30 seconds

The schema.xml have more than 100 fields.
 
-Original Message-
From: "Govind @ Gmail" 
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 15:01:04 
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Reply-To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" 
Cc: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Performance issues

http://www.lucidimagination.com/content/scaling-lucene-and-solr 

Has good guidance.

Wrt 1. What is the  issue - mem, cpu or query perf or indexing process


On Nov 20, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Lalit Kumar 4  wrote:

> Hello:
> We recently have seen performance issues of SOLR (running on jetty). 
> 
> We are looking for help in:
> 
> 1) How can I benchmark our current implementation?
> 2) We are trying core vs another instances. What are pros and cons?
> 3) Any pointers to validate current configuration is correct?
> 
> Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

Re: Which QueryParser to use

2011-01-19 Thread Lalit Kumar 4 
 
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

-Original Message-
From: Ahmet Arslan 
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 10:43:46 
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Reply-To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org" 
Subject: Re: Which QueryParser to use

> Hi all
>     We are planning to move our search core from
> Lucene library to Solr, and
> we are new here.
> 
>  We have a question :which parser we should choose?
> 
> Our original query for Lucene is kinda of complicated
> Ex: *+((name1:A name2:B)^1000  (category1:C ^100
> category:D ^10) ^100)
> +(location1:E location2:F location3:G)~2*
> 
> Does the *dismax *query parser can handle this case, what's
> the alternative?
> 
> Or we can still use the *lucene *query parser without
> setMinimumNumberShouldMatch,
> which is not involved in lucene query parser.

As I understand you were constructing your queries programmatically, without 
using Lucene's QueryParser, right? If yes how were you handling analysis of 
query terms? Can you tell the types of these fields (location,name)?