In my site, I have a document, which may have multiple comments.
For each comment, I would like to know several pieces of information, like:
text, author, and date.
-Matt
Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
>
> Hi Ranjeet,
>
> Solr supports multi-valued fields and you can always denormalize your
>
That sounds interesting. Let me explain my situation, which may be a variant
of what you are proposing. My documents contain more than 10.000 fields, but
these fields are divided like:
1. about 20 general purpose fields, of which more than 1 can be selected in
a query.
2. about 10.000 fields of
Hi Laurent
Laurent Gilles wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was faced with the same issues reguarding multiwords synonyms
> Let's say a synonyms list like:
>
> club, bar, night cabaret
>
> Now if we have a document containing "club", with the default synonyms
> filter behaviour with expand=true, we will
I've recently encountered a strange error while batch indexing around 500
average-sized documents:
HTTP Status 500 - null
javax.xml.stream.XMLStreamException
at com.bea.xml.stream.MXParser.fillBuf(MXParser.java:3700)
at com.bea.xml.stream.MXParser.more(MXParser.java:3715)
at com.bea.x
On 28-Jul-08, at 1:53 PM, Britske wrote:
Each query requests at most 20 stored fields. Why doesn't help
lazyfieldloading in this situation?
It does help, but not enough. With lots of data per document and not
a lot of memory, it becomes probabilistically likely that each doc
resides in a
: You could extend HTMLStripReader to not decode named character entities,
: e.g. by overriding HTMLStripReader.read() so that it calls an
: alternative readEntity(), which instead of converting entity references
: to characters would just leave the entity references as-is, something
: like:
In general though i wondering if steping back a bit and modifying your
request handler to use a SolrDocumentList where you've already
flattened
the ExternalFileField into each SolrDocument would be an easier
approach
-- then you wouldnt' need to modify the ResponseWriter at all.
Consider
: > omitNorms: do I need it for full-text fields even if I don't need index-time
: > boosting? I don't want to boost text where keyword repeated several time. Is
: > my understanding correct?
if you omitNorms="true" then you not only lose index-time doc/field
boosting, but you also loose lengthN
: I've been trying to return a field of type ExternalFileField in the search
: result. Upon examining XMLWriter class, it seems like Solr can't do this out
: of the box. Therefore, I've tried to hack Solr to enable this behaviour.
: The goal is to call to ExternalFileField.getValueSource(SchemaFi
: When i'm looking for words taking care of distance between them, i'm using
: lucene syntax "A B"~distance... unfortunaly if A leads to A1 and A2 forms i
: should split this into syntax +("A1 B"~dist "A2 B"~dist ") - this grows with
: progression depending of normal forms quantity of each term.
:
: "Expansion stemming ? Takes a root word and 'expands' it to all of its
: various forms ? can be used either at insertion time or at query
: time."
:
: How do I specify that I want the expansion stemming instead of the porter
: stemming?
there isn't anexpclit expansion stemming filter included
Hi Frances,
HTMLStripWhitespaceTokenizerFactory wraps a WhitespaceTokenizer around an
HTMLStripReader.
You could extend HTMLStripReader to not decode named character entities, e.g.
by overriding HTMLStripReader.read() so that it calls an alternative
readEntity(), which instead of converting en
I'm using the solr-nightly of 2008-04-05
Grant Ingersoll-6 wrote:
>
> What version of Solr/Lucene are you using?
>
> On Jul 28, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Britske wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm on a development box currently and production servers will be
>> bigger, but
>> at the same time the index will be to
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I'm going to investigate some more...
Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Britske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Each query requests at most 20 stored fields. Why doesn't help
>> lazyfieldloading in this situation?
>
> It's the disk seek
What version of Solr/Lucene are you using?
On Jul 28, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Britske wrote:
I'm on a development box currently and production servers will be
bigger, but
at the same time the index will be too.
Each query requests at most 20 stored fields. Why doesn't help
lazyfieldloading in th
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Britske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Each query requests at most 20 stored fields. Why doesn't help
> lazyfieldloading in this situation?
It's the disk seek that kills you... loading 1 byte or 1000 bytes per
document would be about the same speed.
> Also, if I und
I'm on a development box currently and production servers will be bigger, but
at the same time the index will be too.
Each query requests at most 20 stored fields. Why doesn't help
lazyfieldloading in this situation?
I don't need to retrieve all stored fields and I thought I wasn't doing this
(
Another possibility is to partition the stored fields into a
frequently-accessed set and a full set. If the frequently-accessed
set is significantly smaller (in terms of # bytes), then the documents
will be tightly-packed on disk and the os caching will be much more
effective given the sam
That's a bit too tight to have *all* of the index cached...your best
bet is to go to 4GB+, or figure out a way not to have to retrieve so
many stored fields.
-Yonik
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Britske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Size on disk is 1.84 GB (of which 1.3 GB sits in FDT files i
Size on disk is 1.84 GB (of which 1.3 GB sits in FDT files if that matters)
Physical RAM is 2 GB with -Xmx800M set to Solr.
Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> That high of a difference is due to the part of the index containing
> these particular stored fields not being in OS cache. What's the size
> on
That high of a difference is due to the part of the index containing
these particular stored fields not being in OS cache. What's the size
on disk of your index compared to your physical RAM?
-Yonik
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Britske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> For some quer
Hi all,
For some queries I need to return a lot of rows at once (say 100).
When performing these queries I notice a big difference between qTime (which
is mostly in the 15-30 ms range due to caching) and total time taken to
return the response (measured through SolrJ's elapsedTime), which takes
Hi, we are currently evaluating Solr and have been browsing the archives for
one particular issue but can¹t seem to find the answer, so please forgive me
if I¹m asking a repetitive question. We like the idea of having multiple
slave servers serving up queries and a master performing updates. How
If you want to think of Solr in database terms, it has only one table. The
fields in this table have very flexible type definitions. There can be many
optional fields. They also can have various indexes which used together can
search text in useful ways.
If you want to model multiple tables, you
Please see discussion at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-665
Very simple:
map = new LinkedHashMap(initialSize, 0.75f, true) - LRU Cache
(and we need synchronized get())
map = new LinkedHashMap(initialSize, 0.75f, false) - FIFO
(and we do not need synchronized get())
--
Thanks,
Fuad E
> -Original Message-
> From: Shalin Shekhar Mangar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:38 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SpellCheckComponent problems (was: Multiple search
> components in one handler - ie spellchecker)
>
> Well that means the nigh
Well that means the nightly solr jar you are using is older than you think
it is. Try running solr normally without the program and see if you can get
it working.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Andrew Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Well I will include the stack trace for the aforementioned er
Well I will include the stack trace for the aforementioned error:
Jul 28, 2008 12:20:17 PM org.apache.solr.common.SolrException log
SEVERE: org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Error loading class
'org.apache.solr.handler.component.SpellCheckComponent'
at
org.apache.solr.core.SolrResour
Hmm ... sorry, that was the output of a java program that uses solr that I ran
and noticed the error. That error doesn't happen when I start solr. Sorry for
the confusion.
I just changed my schema to have a dedicated field for spelling called
"spelling" and I created a new field type for the
No, SpellCheckComponent was in the nightly long before July 25. There must
be a stack trace after that error message. Can you post that?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Andrew Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I was just reviewing the solr logs and I noticed the following:
>
> Jul 28, 2008 11:52:
Hi,
I was faced with the same issues reguarding multiwords synonyms
Let's say a synonyms list like:
club, bar, night cabaret
Now if we have a document containing "club", with the default synonyms
filter behaviour with expand=true, we will end up in the lucene index with a
document containing "cl
I was just reviewing the solr logs and I noticed the following:
Jul 28, 2008 11:52:01 AM org.apache.solr.common.SolrException log
SEVERE: org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Error loading class
'org.apache.solr.handler.component.SpellCheckComponent'
It looks like the SpellCheckComponent is not
Hi Andrew,
Your configuration which you specified in the earlier thread looks fine.
Your query is also ok. The complete lack of spell check results in the
response you pasted suggests that the SpellCheckComponent is not added to
the SearchHandler's list of components.
Can you check your solrconfi
> -Original Message-
> From: Shalin Shekhar Mangar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:09 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: SpellCheckComponent problems (was: Multiple search
> components in one handler - ie spellchecker)
>
> Can you show us the quer
Can you show us the query you are issuing? Make sure you add spellcheck=true
to the query as a parameter to turn on spell checking.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Andrew Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Shalin - yes the allfields field exists in my schema.xml file. It is a
> field that has all
On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Fuad Efendi wrote:
Hi,
It's unclear... found in schema.xml:
omitNorms: (expert) set to true to omit the norms associated with
this field (this disables length normalization and index-time
boosting for the field, and saves some memory). Only full-text
Shalin - yes the allfields field exists in my schema.xml file. It is a field
that has all of the text from all of the fields concatenated together into one
field.
My spellCheckIndexDir is created and has 2 segment files, but I think the index
is empty. When I initiate the 1st spellcheck.build
Hi,
In Solr there is no hierarchy of objects. De-normalize everything into one
schema using multi-valued fields where applicable. Decide on what the
document should be. What do you want to return as individual results -- are
they catalogs or categories?
You can get more help if you give an exampl
Hi,
In our case there is Category object under Catalog object, so I do not want
to defined the data structure for the Category. I want to give the reference
of Category uder Catalog, how can I do this.
Regards,
Ranjeet
- Original Message -
From: "Shalin Shekhar Mangar" <[EMAIL PROTE
Hi Ranjeet,
Solr supports multi-valued fields and you can always denormalize your data.
Can you give more details on the problem you are trying to solve?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ranjeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can we defined nested data structure in schema.xml for searching?
Hi,
Can we defined nested data structure in schema.xml for searching? is it
prossible or not?
Thanks & Regards,
Ranjeet Jha
On Jul 28, 2008, at 5:31 AM, Sunil wrote:
Both the fields are "text" type:
The definition of the field type is important - perhaps it is
stripping "2.0"? You can find out by using Solr analysis.jsp (see
the Solr admin area in your installation).
How "&debugQuery=true" will help? I
Both the fields are "text" type:
How "&debugQuery=true" will help? I am not familiar with the output.
Thanks,
Sunil
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 2:33 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Exact match
Look at wh
Look at what Solr returns when adding &debugQuery=true for the parsed
query, and also consider how your fields are analyzed (their
associated type, etc).
Erik
On Jul 28, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Sunil wrote:
Hi,
I am sending a request to solr for exact match.
Example: (title:("Web 2.0"
Hi,
I am sending a request to solr for exact match.
Example: (title:("Web 2.0" OR "Social Networking") OR description: ("Web
2.0" OR "Social Networking"))
But in the results I am getting stories matching "Social", "Web" etc.
Please let me know what's going wrong.
Thanks,
Sunil
45 matches
Mail list logo
