Thanks for the suggestion Chris. I modified SimpleFacets to check for
[f.foo.]facet.field.type==(single|multi)
and the performance has been improved significantly.
On 7/17/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > ...but i don't understand why both checking isTokenized() ...
shouldn't
: I have read that the default sorting is by the "score desc".
: However when I ran the query, I get some erroneous results.
:
: This is the query I ran:
:
: solr include_in_directory_p:t AND active_p:t AND (in_shelves:(0777,1)^100
: OR in_groups:(02343^50 02345^30 abc xyz)); score desc
what vers
In general, the type of feature you are interested in is typcially caleld
a "PrefixQuery" you can acomplish it with the SolrQueryParser using "a*"
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrQuerySyntax
: example show all docs starting with an "a" or "A", I would just add an
: extra field only conta
: That link indeed indicates, that when reading the index with Solr, it is
: possible but you need to make the correct mapping of the analyzers (ie,
: if field X is analyzed with analyzer Y, you need to map this in your
: solr config)
:
: So, it is possible if you can find all fields and configure
Thank you for this. I will be giving this a try, as I think it would
work well for us.
In the index, we'll store them as
Footwear>Outdoor>Mens>Fancy>Hiking>Boots>Waterproof, and upon getting
it out as a facet, we'll convert that into a footwear..
list for display. Then we'll drill down us
Here's one approach that should work: You could treat departments the
way the sample app treats manufacturers, with a manu field (tokenized)
and a manu_exact field (nontokenized). You would then do your initial
search (mens+footwear) on the dept field, and facet on the dept_exact
field, with facet.
I'm certainly not smart enough to look under the hood of SOLR, but from
the one basic installation I've been messing with, it seems like the
faceting is for non-hierarchical data only. I could be wrong, though. In
my mind categories and facets are similar but distinct, like the
category dictate
We were thinking of using SOLR simply because we'll end up navigating
around the products via facets at some level - so why not just use it
from the beginning.
For example, if we build the category landing pages from our DB, when
the user clicks on a link, they'll get dumped into SOLR to vi
So you want your category display to be controlled by SOLR? Why not
keep the hierarchical structure of categories in a RDBMS, then keep
the product index in SOLR?
Corey
On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Matthew Runo wrote:
Hello!
I was very surprised to find that this wasn't in the email archi
Hello!
I was very surprised to find that this wasn't in the email archive
for this list I'm wondering about the best way to provide
hierarchal navigation using facets. For example, lets assume that I
have products with department trees like:
Footwear > Mens > Hiking > Waterproof (cou
On 7/16/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > ...but i don't understand why both checking isTokenized() ... shouldn't
: > multiValued() be enough?
:
: A field could return "false" for multiValued() and still have multiple
: tokens per document for that field.
ah .. right ... sorry:
: > ...but i don't understand why both checking isTokenized() ... shouldn't
: > multiValued() be enough?
:
: A field could return "false" for multiValued() and still have multiple
: tokens per document for that field.
ah .. right ... sorry: multiValued() indicates wether multiple discreet
values
On 7/16/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: There is currently no way to force Solr to use the FieldCache method.
I'm having a hard time remembering why this is ... i see the line in
SimpleFacets that says...
if (sf.multiValued() || ft.isTokenized() || ft instanceof BoolField) {
: There is currently no way to force Solr to use the FieldCache method.
I'm having a hard time remembering why this is ... i see the line in
SimpleFacets that says...
if (sf.multiValued() || ft.isTokenized() || ft instanceof BoolField) {
// Always use filters for booleans... we know the
Thanks!
Marius
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 7/16/07, Marius Hanganu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We're trying NOT to allow searches with *. So if the user searches for
"a*" - instead of returning all records starting with a, we would return
all records containing the "a*" string.
OK, a backslash esc
I'd like to hire a few hours of someone's time: someone who is very
familiar with Lucene and Solr and can give advice on how to best set
it up for our shop's needs.
I run a small online store that would like to convert our product
search to Solr/Lucene.
I'll be doing most of the work, (the tutor
I've tried both of your recommendations (use facet.enum.cache.minDf=1000 and
optimise the index). The query time is around 0.4-0.5s now but it's still
slow compared to the old "string" type. I haven't tried to increase
filterCache but 100 of cached items looks a bit too much for my server
atm.
On 7/16/07, climbingrose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Yonik. In my case, there is only one "title" field per document so is
there a way to force Solr to work the old way? My analyser doesn't break up
the "title" field into multiple tokens. It only tries to format the field
value (to lower ca
Thanks Yonik. In my case, there is only one "title" field per document so is
there a way to force Solr to work the old way? My analyser doesn't break up
the "title" field into multiple tokens. It only tries to format the field
value (to lower case, remove unwanted chars and words). Therefore, it's
I don't know if there is one, but if you need this kind of search to for
example show all docs starting with an "a" or "A", I would just add an extra
field only containing the first letter. This is *much* faster in lucene, and
for many documents you don't risk the too many boolean clauses (thoug
Since you went from a non multi-valued "string" type (which Solr knows
has at most one value per document) to a custom analyzer type (which
could produce multiple tokens per document), Solr switched tactics
from using the FieldCache for faceting to using the filterCache.
Right now, you could try
On 7/16/07, Marius Hanganu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We're trying NOT to allow searches with *. So if the user searches for
"a*" - instead of returning all records starting with a, we would return
all records containing the "a*" string.
OK, a backslash escape should work: a\*
-Yonik
Hi all,
My facet browsing performance has been decent on my system until I add my
custom Analyser. Initially, I facetted "title" field which is of default
string type (no analysers, tokenisers...) and got quick responses (first
query is just under 1s, subsequent queries are < 0.1s). I created a c
Wow, that was fast :-)
We're executing URL based queries and URL escaping is not the problem.
We're trying NOT to allow searches with *. So if the user searches for
"a*" - instead of returning all records starting with a, we would return
all records containing the "a*" string.
Regards,
Mariu
On 7/16/07, Marius Hanganu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a way in SOLR to escape * and '?' ?
There is URL escaping, and there is query parser escaping.
URL encoding is standard (percent encoding), and parser escaping is
the same as Lucene (use a backslash).
It would be easier to help if
Hello,
Is there a way in SOLR to escape * and '?' ?
Regards,
Marius
Is there any way to query - find the string which first char is "a" or "A".
Thanks,
Jae
That link indeed indicates, that when reading the index with Solr, it is
possible but you need to make the correct mapping of the analyzers (ie, if
field X is analyzed with analyzer Y, you need to map this in your solr config)
So, it is possible if you can find all fields and configure the corre
Hi,
From my personal experience, solr is capable to search in an index
generated with CLucene.
Of course, you have to be carefull on the type mappings.
J.
On 7/16/07, Ard Schrijvers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
AFAIK, Solr Search is only capable of searching in a Lucene index that is
c
Hi,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
But i saw this posting on solr mailing list
http://www.mail-archive.com/solr-user@lucene.apache.org/msg04819.html
please look at this.
Thanks
Narendra
On 7/16/07, Ard Schrijvers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
AFAIK, Solr Search is only capable of s
Hello,
AFAIK, Solr Search is only capable of searching in a Lucene index that is
created by Solr (at least, this seems logical to me)...or, the exact same
fields and analyzers must have been indexed the way solr would have done it.
Ard
>
> Hi,
> Can Solr Search any Lucene Index. If "YES
I'd like to hire a few hours of someone's time: someone who is very
familiar with Lucene and Solr and can give advice on how to best set
up a new system.
I run a small online store that would like to convert our product
search to Solr/Lucene.
I'll be doing most of the work, (the tutorial example
Hi,
Can Solr Search any Lucene Index. If "YES" what should be change in
configuration.
Thanks
Narendra
Hi,
I am new to using SOLR.
I have read that the default sorting is by the "score desc".
However when I ran the query, I get some erroneous results.
This is the query I ran:
solr include_in_directory_p:t AND active_p:t AND (in_shelves:(0777,1)^100
OR in_groups:(02343^50 02345^30 abc xyz)); scor
34 matches
Mail list logo
