On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:10:09 +0200
"Nico Heid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So now the Question:
> Is there a way to split a too big index into smaller ones? Do I have to
> create more instances at the beginning, so that I will not run out of power
> and space? (which will ad quite a bit of redund
: My example is just simple, in real life the numbers are a lot bigger. However,
: the amount of unique products vs variations is such that it seems a lot of
: work to iterate over al variations in a DocSet just to get the few unique
: products.
: But, what I understand from you anwser is that the
On Apr 29, 2008, at 3:09 PM, James Brady wrote:
Hi all,
I'm aiming to use the new multicore features in development versions
of Solr. My ideal setup would be to have master / slave servers on
the same machine, snapshotting across from the 'write' to the 'read'
server at intervals.
This w
Depending on your application, it might be useful to take control of
the queueing yourself: it was for me!
I needed quick turnarounds for submitting a document to be indexed,
which Solr can't guarantee right now. To address it, I wrote a
persistent queueing server, accessed by XML-RPC, whic
Special things:
- 2.3.1 fixes bugs with 'autocommit' of version 2.3.0
- I am having OutOfMemoryError constantly, I can't understand where the
problem is yet... I didn't have it with default SOLR 1.2 installation. It's
not memory-cache related, most probably it is a bug somewhere...
Yongjun Rong
Hi all,
I'm aiming to use the new multicore features in development versions
of Solr. My ideal setup would be to have master / slave servers on the
same machine, snapshotting across from the 'write' to the 'read'
server at intervals.
This was all fine with Solr 1.2, but the rsync & snappul
Hi,
I want to know if is posible the next kind of Sorting:
I perform the search like Matahari. The returned results may include "A big
life: Matahari", "War and Matahari", "Matahari" (in that order). How can I
return results by sorting at first the results that matches the begiging of
string? I w
I seem to recall Doug C. commenting on this: http://lucene.markmail.org/search/?q=FilterIndexReader#query
:FilterIndexReader%20from%3A%22Doug%20Cutting%22+page:1+mid:y673avueo43ufwhm+state:results
Not sure if that is exactly what you are looking for, but sounds
similar.
-Grant
On Apr 29, 2
Hi Nico,
I don't think there is a tool to split an existing Lucene index, though I
imagine one could write such a tool using
http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_3_1/fileformats.html as a guide.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: Ni
I think you may be okay with the Lucene 2.3 (I tried it with Solr from a few
months ago).
The development version of Solr already uses Lucene 2.3.*.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: Yongjun Rong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: solr-u
Hi,
It seems the latest lucene 2.3 has some improvement on performance.
I'm just wondering if it is ok for us to easily upgrade the solr's
lucene from 2.1 to 2.3. Is any special thing we need to know except just
replace the lucene jars in the lib directory.
Thank you very much.
Yongjun Rong
I don't think the KeywordMatch and the elevate.xml are the same
thing. I tried this out today but there is no way for an element to @
least mark that it was "elevated" to the top. An example of what Im
trying to do is if say "Solr" is entered into a search, return a block
of text and/or o
We are not doing away with the current replication strategy. It's
just that
we're proposing an alternative.
I'm all for adding a replication strategy that works on windows and is
controlled/managed from the webapp. The existing hardlink rsync
methods may have better performance...
ry
In the future, don't post the same idea in solr-user and solr-dev...
most people on solr-dev read solr-user and the cross posting splits
where discussion ends up.
On Apr 29, 2008, at 5:01 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള്
नोब्ळ् wrote:
hi ,
The current replication strategy in solr involves shell sc
Hi Ian,
I assume that a sizeable amount of people do replication after an optimize
which causes almost the whole index to be transferred by rsync. We can do a
checksum based modification check on individual segment files and pull only
those from the master. Although that's not a true diff copy, bu
The current scripts use rsync to minimize the amount of data actually
being copied.
I've had a brief look and found only 1 implementation which is GPL and
abandoned
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jarsync.
Personally I still think the size of the transfer is important (as for
most use cases
Hi Thijs.
If you are not concerned with a *EXACT* number there is a paper that was
published in 1990 that discusses this problem.
http://dblab.kaist.ac.kr/Publication/pdf/ACM90_TODS_v15n2.pdf
from the paper (If I understand it correctly)
For 120,000,000 records you can sample 10,112,529 reco
hi ,
The current replication strategy in solr involves shell scripts . The
following are the drawbacks
* It does not work with windows
* Replication works as a separate piece not integrated with solr.
* Cannot control replication from solr admin/JMX
* Each operation requires manual telnet to the h
Hi,
Let me first roughly describe the scenario :-)
We're trying to index online stored data for some thousand users.
The schema.xml has a custom identifier for the user, so FQ can be applied
and further filtering is only done for the user (more important, the user
doesn't get to see results from d
It must be my english.
When I read your comment, I think you could compare it to the category
example...
Maybe with an example I can explain my situation better:
The documents in the index contain variations of different products.
Say for example I have 10 different products. Every product is i
20 matches
Mail list logo
