: Was there an intended change on the 'facet_fields' response from Solr's
: ruby/python format on the nightly build? Before it was returning a hash but
: now it's returning an array. I'm assuming it's a bug...
when upgrading Solr, it's always good to check the CHANGES.txt file --
even when using
On 2/27/07, Peter McPeterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Was there an intended change on the 'facet_fields' response from Solr's
ruby/python format on the nightly build? Before it was returning a hash but
now it's returning an array. I'm assuming it's a bug...
It was decided that too many client
Hello Yonik,
You are right. = is allowed. The problem was because & was
not properly escaped in xml.
--
Thanks,
Jack
Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 8:47:35 AM, you wrote:
> On 2/27/07, Jack L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am indexing some pages whose urls are unique.
>> I wanted to use url as t
On 2/27/07, Ken Krugler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm also interested in this. For me, I don't need sorted output,
faceted browsing, or alternative output formats - so something along
the lines of the "Merge XML responses w/o Schema" proposal would be
just fine.
Open issues:
3. Highlighting
I just downloaded Solr to try out, it seems like it will replace a
ton of code I've written. I saw a few posts about the
FederatedSearch and skimmed the ideas at
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FederatedSearch. The project I am
working on has several Lucene indexes 20-40GB in size spread among a
Hi all,
Was there an intended change on the 'facet_fields' response from Solr's
ruby/python format on the nightly build? Before it was returning a hash but
now it's returning an array. I'm assuming it's a bug...
before:
'facet_fields'=>{'category'=>{'TVs' => 2, 'Electronics' => 1}}
after
'fa
I just downloaded Solr to try out, it seems like it will replace a ton
of code I've written. I saw a few posts about the FederatedSearch and
skimmed the ideas at http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FederatedSearch. The
project I am working on has several Lucene indexes 20-40GB in size
spread among a
: >Is it possible to modify MoreLikeThis to use the schema.xml-defined
: >analyzer? That's the way the highlighting code currently works (it
: >picks the index-time analyzer).
:
: I looked at that briefly (passing the analyzer to use down to
: MoreLikeThis), but for my fields it's a lot more than
On 2/27/07, Jack L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am indexing some pages whose urls are unique.
I wanted to use url as the unique key but got a
problem that "=" is not allowed in unique keys.
That doesn't sound right. unique keys can be anything (but they need
to be indexed to a single token...
I am indexing some pages whose urls are unique.
I wanted to use url as the unique key but got a
problem that "=" is not allowed in unique keys.
I could use a MD5 hash of the url as the unique key
but I'm not sure if there is a better/simpler way.
I wonder what others use for the unique keys?
--
B
: >Is it possible to modify MoreLikeThis to use the schema.xml-defined
: >analyzer? That's the way the highlighting code currently works (it
: >picks the index-time analyzer).
:
: I looked at that briefly (passing the analyzer to use down to
: MoreLikeThis), but for my fields it's a lot more than
11 matches
Mail list logo
