On 7-Jun-07, at 5:27 PM, Frédéric Glorieux wrote:
Hoss,
Thanks for all your information and pointers. I know that my
problems are not mainstream.
Have you tried commenting out getPrefixQuery in
solr.search.SolrQueryParser? It should then revert to a "regular"
lucene prefix query.
-Mi
Hoss,
Thanks for all your information and pointers. I know that my problems
are not mainstream.
ConstantScoreQuery @author yonik
public void extractTerms(Set terms) {
// OK to not add any terms when used for MultiSearcher,
// but may not be OK for highlighting
}
ConstantScoreRangeQ
Teruhiko Kurosaka wrote:
I see Solr uses the JDK java.util.logging.Logger.
I should also be using this Logger when I write
a plugin, correct?
You can use which ever logging you like ;) solr uses JDK logging. If
you want to contribute the plugin back to solr, it will need to use JDK
logging
I see Solr uses the JDK java.util.logging.Logger.
I should also be using this Logger when I write
a plugin, correct?
I am asking only because I see commons-logging.jar
in apache-solr-1.1.0-incubating/example/ext
What is this for?
-kuro
Thank you! That makes sense.
--Casey
>>> Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6/7/2007 2:35 PM >>>
On 7-Jun-07, at 1:41 PM, Casey Durfee wrote:
> It appears that if your search terms include stopwords and you use
> the DisMax request handler, you get no results whereas the same
> search with the
On 7-Jun-07, at 1:41 PM, Casey Durfee wrote:
It appears that if your search terms include stopwords and you use
the DisMax request handler, you get no results whereas the same
search with the standard request handler does give you results. Is
this a bug or by design?
There is a subtlety
Sure thing. I downloaded the latest version of Solr, started up the example
server, and indexed the ipod_other.xml file. The following URLs give a result:
http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=ipod
http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=the+ipod
http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=ipod&qt=dism
: It appears that if your search terms include stopwords and you use the
: DisMax request handler, you get no results whereas the same search with
: the standard request handler does give you results. Is this a bug or by
: design?
dismax works just fine with stop words ... can you give a specifi
Hi, Jeff and Mike.
Would you mind telling us about the architecture of your solutions a
little bit? Mike, you said that you implemented a highly-distributed search
engine using Solr as indexing nodes. What does that mean? You guys
implemented a master, multi-slave solution for replication? Or t
On 7-Jun-07, at 1:04 PM, Xuesong Luo wrote:
Ryan, you are right, that's the problem. WilliAM is treated as two
words
by the WordDelimiterFilterFactory.
I have found this behaviour a little too aggresive for my needs, so i
added an option to disable it. Patch is here:
http://issues.apach
It appears that if your search terms include stopwords and you use the DisMax
request handler, you get no results whereas the same search with the standard
request handler does give you results. Is this a bug or by design?
Thanks,
--Casey
Mike - thanks for the comments. Some responses added below.
On 6/7/07, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've implemented a highly-distributed search engine using Solr (200m
docs and growing, 60+ servers). It is not a Solr-based solution in
the vein of FederatedSearch--it is a higher-le
Ryan, you are right, that's the problem. WilliAM is treated as two words
by the WordDelimiterFilterFactory.
Thanks
Xuesong
-Original Message-
From: Ryan McKinley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:30 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: TextField case s
I have WordDelimiterFilter defined in the schema, I didn't include it in
my original email because I thought it doesn't matter. It seems it
matters. Looks like WilliAm is treated as two words. That's why it
didn't find a match.
Thanks
Xuesong
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ma
On 6/7/07, Michael Thessel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a general speed problem with range searches in solr? It looks a bit
strange for me, that a query for a term takes 5 ms while adding a filter to the
same resultset takes 80s?
It's completely dependent on the number of terms in the
Hey Yoink,
thanks a lot for your quick reply.
> I suspect that the endpoint to your dateline filter changes often,
> hence caching is doing no good. Is then endpoint (1181237598) derived
> from the current time?
Yes, it is.
> If so, there are some things you can do:
> 1) make it faster to gener
On 6-Jun-07, at 7:44 PM, Jeff Rodenburg wrote:
I've been exploring distributed search, as of late. I don't know
about the
"next solr" but I could certainly see a "distributed solr" grow out
of such
an expansion.
I've implemented a highly-distributed search engine using Solr (200m
docs a
On 6/7/07, Michael Thessel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've got a problem with filtered queries. I have an index with about 8
million documents. I save a timestamp (not the time of indexing) for
each document as an integer field. Querying the index is pretty fast.
But when I filter on the timestam
have you taken a look the output from the admin/analysis?
http://localhost:8983/solr/admin/analysis.jsp?highlight=on
This lets you see what tokens are generated for index/query. From your
description, I'm suspicious that the generated tokens are actually:
willi am
Also, if you want the same
: With "a?*" I get the documented lucene error
: maxClauseCount is set to 1024
Which is why Solr converts PrefixQueries to ConstantScorePrefixQueries
that don't have that problem --the trade off being that they can't be
highlighted, and we're right back where we started.
It's a question of prior
On 6/7/07, Xuesong Luo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I run a problem when searching on a TextField. When I pass q=William or
q=WILLiam, solr is able to find records whose default search field value
is William, however if I pass q=WilliAm, solr did not return any thing.
Sounds like WordDelimiterFil
I run a problem when searching on a TextField. When I pass q=William or
q=WILLiam, solr is able to find records whose default search field value
is William, however if I pass q=WilliAm, solr did not return any thing.
I searched on the archive, Yonik mentioned the lowercasefilterfactory
doesn't work
: Is this addressed in 1.2 or is running multiple instances of indexes
: such a Bad Idea that supporting this would be leading a fool further astray?
I still haven't had a chance to try it myself using Tomcat, but here's
what i found the last time someone asked about this...
http://www.nabble.co
On 7-Jun-07, at 1:04 AM, Manoharam Reddy wrote:
Some musing:-
(I have used Nutch before and one thing I observed there was that if I
delete the crawl folder when Nutch is running, users can still search
and obtain proper results. It seems Nutch caches all the indexes in
the memory when it starts
Same in my project. Chris does mention we can put a ? before the *, so instead
of domin*, you can use domin?*, however that requires at least one char
following your search string.
Right, it works well, and one char is a detail.
With "a?*" I get the documented lucene error
maxClauseCount is s
Hello UG,
I've got a problem with filtered queries. I have an index with about 8
million documents. I save a timestamp (not the time of indexing) for
each document as an integer field. Querying the index is pretty fast.
But when I filter on the timestamp the queries are extremely slow, even
if the
I'm not sure what sort of "field" you mean for defining the
language.
If you plan to use a single search UI regardless of language,
we used to do this in Ultraseek, but it doesn't really work.
Queries are too short for reliable language ID (is "die" in
German, English, or Latin?), and language-spe
Implementing a stemmer for Latin might be easier for you and for
your users. It will probably provide better results, too.
http://informationr.net/ir/2-1/paper10.html
wunder
On 6/7/07 10:36 AM, "Frédéric Glorieux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your answer, sorry to have not scan
Hi,
I'm just starting to use Solr and so far, it has been a very interesting
learning process. I wasn't a Lucene user, so I'm learning a lot about both.
My problem is:
I have to index and search content in several languages.
My scenario is a bit different from other that I've already read in th
Same in my project. Chris does mention we can put a ? before the *, so instead
of domin*, you can use domin?*, however that requires at least one char
following your search string.
-Original Message-
From: Frédéric Glorieux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:37
Xuesong (?),
Thanks a lot for your answer, sorry to have not scan the archives
before. This a really good and understandable reason, but sad for my
project. Prefix queries will be the main activities of my users (they
need to search latin texts, so that domin* is enough to match "dominus"
or
Frédéric,
I asked a similar question several days before, it seems we don't have a
perfect solution when using prefix wildcard with highlight. Here is what Chris
said:
in Solr 1.1, highlighting used the info from the raw query to do highlighting,
hence in your query for consult* it would highl
On 6/7/07, Thierry Collogne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was just downloading solr and noticed that there is a 1.2 version
available. Is this the final 1.2 version?
Is this the version that is to be used?
Yes. A release is typically available a day before an announcement
because it takes a whi
Solr 1.2 is now available for download!
This is the first release since Solr graduated from the Incubator, and
includes many improvements, including CSV/delimited-text data
loading, time based auto-commit, faster faceting, negative filters,
a spell-check handler, sounds-like word filters, regex te
Sorry to jump on a "Side note" of the thread, but the topic is about
some of my need of the moment.
Side Note: It's my opinion that "type ahead" or "auto complete' style
functionality is best addressed by customized logic (most likely using
specially built fields containing all of the pref
Solr is not designed to be a general enterprise search engine. It is
a back end search server.
If you are going to crawl your intranet, you will need a good crawler
that is easy to manage, and the ability to parse lots of kinds of
documents. Unfortunately, Solr really doesn't have those.
Commerci
Perhaps not the most elegant, but running each index on a
different container & port works pretty well. And we can tune
the jvm (and of course caches) differently.
--cw
Andrew Nagy wrote:
Yonik Seeley wrote:
I dropped your schema.xml directly into the Solr example (using
Jetty), fired it up, and everything works fine!?
Okay, I switched over to Jetty and now I get a different error:
SEVERE: org.apache.solr.core.SolrException: undefined field text
As someone wh
I'm running solr 1.1 under Tomcat 5.5. On the development machine there
are a modest number of instances of solr indexes (six).
In the logs currently the only way to distinguish them is to compare the
[EMAIL PROTECTED], where the someIdentifier changes each time
Tomcat is restarted (depressin
On 6/7/07, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
. it's called XSLT. most modern browsers can do the transform on the
client side.
otherwise there is some server side tools (cocoon I think does this) to
do the transform on the server before sending it out
Solr also does server-side XSLT,
Hi all,
I'm talking about solr subversion, jetty example, default documents,
like the tutorial. I tried to highlight queries with wildcard. Documents
are found like waited, but I haven't seen the terms highlighted. It
seems to work with fuzzy search, so I thought it was a supposed feature.
A
Simplicity.
The best answer :o)
The memory usage for highlight fields in normal responses
is not an issue.
If it becomes an issue for you, then you're roughly taking the right
approach.
However, rather than write your own response writer to solve your
issue, you might consider
just your
Pardon me if I am taking too much of your time.
It would be really great if you could please highlight a few
advantages of caching and maintenance over nutch.
Some musing:-
(I have used Nutch before and one thing I observed there was that if I
delete the crawl folder when Nutch is running, users
Manoharam Reddy wrote:
Thanks for your quick response.
This brings me to another question. As far as I know Nutch can take
care of crawling as well as indexing. Then why go through the hassle
of crawling through Nutch and integrating it into Solr?
I found Solr's caching and maintenance easier
Thanks for your quick response.
This brings me to another question. As far as I know Nutch can take
care of crawling as well as indexing. Then why go through the hassle
of crawling through Nutch and integrating it into Solr?
Another question I have, Solr provides the search results in XML
format
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 6/6/07, Jeff Rodenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In terms of the FederatedSearch wiki entry (updated last year), has
there
been any progress made this year on this topic, at least something
worthy of
being added or updated to the wiki page?
Priorities shifted, and I d
Hi Manoharam.
we use nutch to do the crawl, and have used sami's patch of nutch
(http://blog.foofactory.fi/2007/02/online-indexing-integrating-nutch-with.html
) to have it integrate with Solr. It works quite well for our needs.
If you are concerned with the speed, Solr also has a CSV upload
I have just begun using Solr. I see that we have to insert documents
by posting XMLs to solr/update
I would like to know how Solr is used as a search engine in
enterprises. How do you do the crawling of your intranet and passing
the information as XML to solr/update. Isn't this going to be slow?
Hello,
I was just downloading solr and noticed that there is a 1.2 version
available. Is this the final 1.2 version?
Is this the version that is to be used?
Thank you,
Thierry
49 matches
Mail list logo
