I'm using solr, to build a search
engine, and it works great!!
Thanks for the job,guys!
but...
I need to build a searcher that must allow to perform a "search
process" for a collection of documents. And this search process
may last several days, and be composed of several queries that I mus
Thanks Yonik. I think both of the conditions hold true for our application
;).
On 3/27/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/26/07, climbingrose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm developing an application that potentially creates thousands of
dynamic
> fields. Does anyone know if lar
: Now suppose I have a lot of docs with same signature and signature
: is a very long string. It seems to me indexing the signature will save me
: hard disk space.
that's true, and if you were using Lucene directly you could do this and
then use the StringIndex FieldCache to lookup the value for
: True, but let me ask the question in a different way.
: The problem is that when I run the query and order by date then the
: most recent results are not relevant enough (in general I find I need
i wasn't suggesting you have Solr sort by date, i was suggesting you do
exactly what you asked about
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 09:30 -0400, Winona Salesky wrote:
> Thanks Chris, I'll take another look at the forest plugin.
Have a look as well at http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrForrest
it points out the cocoon components.
salu2
--
Thorsten Scherler thorsten.at.apache.
On 3/26/07, nick19701 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But here the "signature" field has field type "string". when you index it,
you put the whole string somewhere and give it an id, for example, 323454.
In a doc, you only need to reference this id 323454 if the doc happens to
contain
the same signa
Mike Klaas wrote:
>
> Storing and indexing are completely disjoint: indexing is a lossy
> operation, so if you want to be able retrieve the original contents,
> they must be stored separately (ie., the first option uses the least
> space).
>
> -MIke
>
>
But here the "signature" field has fie
On 3/26/07, nick19701 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't need to search the "signature" field. But my intuition tells me that
if I index this field, I will use less hard disk space since a lot of docs
may have the same signature.
Am I right?
Storing and indexing are completely disjoint:
I don't need to search the "signature" field. But my intuition tells me that
if I index this field, I will use less hard disk space since a lot of docs
may have the same signature.
Am I right?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/which-one-will-save-hard-disk-space--tf34
On Mar 26, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Mike Klaas wrote:
Have you tried:
trackURL:http\://host*
Obviously not :) Thanks for the help, that did it.
Brian
On 3/26/07, Brian Whitman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The field is called "trackURL" and has a URL in it, the type is
"string." I want to be able to search for http://host*
q=trackURL:http* <-- works
q=trackURL:http://host* <-- doesn't work, the query parser removes
the : and everything after it
The field is called "trackURL" and has a URL in it, the type is
"string." I want to be able to search for http://host*
q=trackURL:http* <-- works
q=trackURL:http://host* <-- doesn't work, the query parser removes
the : and everything after it
q=trackURL:http%3A//host* <-- doesn't work, same
On 3/26/07, climbingrose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm developing an application that potentially creates thousands of dynamic
fields. Does anyone know if large number of dynamic fields will degrade
Solr performance?
Thousands of fields won't be a problem if
- you don't sort on most of them (
Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
>
> I've added a link to the main newspaper site instead, and clarified that
> hte classifieds use Solr.
> ...
>
It seems that is the 3rd level domain "annunci" (or its presence in the url)
which is banned, if the domain repubblica.it is ok: curious...
Anyway thank Y
Thanks Chris, I'll take another look at the forest plugin.
-Winona
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 4:55 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Using cocoon to update index
: Is anyone using cocoon to index data?
Thank you. Using sitename:"HR & O" did the trick.
On 26/03/07, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 26, 2007, at 7:52 AM, Thierry Collogne wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a field "sitename" that can contain a word with & character,
> "HR &
> O".
> Problem is when I do the following query
On Mar 26, 2007, at 7:52 AM, Thierry Collogne wrote:
Hello,
I have a field "sitename" that can contain a word with & character,
"HR &
O".
Problem is when I do the following query : sitename:HR & O, I get
search
results that don't have HR & O in the sitename field.
Is it possible that th
Hello,
I have a field "sitename" that can contain a word with & character, "HR &
O".
Problem is when I do the following query : sitename:HR & O, I get search
results that don't have HR & O in the sitename field.
Is it possible that there is a problem when performing queries containg &?
Thank yo
18 matches
Mail list logo
