Can you explain more on this or forward some example of this scenario which
can help us.
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> You can search using different fields and you can make such clauses
> required or prohibited or "should occur".
>
> You seem to be describing something more hierarchic
: anything older than 1.3, could you please try to reproduce this with
: 1.3? I seem to recall something similar being mentioned in the past
It was SOLR-261, caused by LUCENE-933
-Hoss
Another +1 for Shalin and Noble for DIH ...
On Sep 16, 2008, at 9:50 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
+1 for Grant's efforts! He put a lot of sweat into making this
release a reality.
Erik
On Sep 16, 2008, at 9:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
The Apache Solr team is happy to announce the av
We use solr 1.2 on our production environment so it seems like this was fixed
in 1.3; let me try getting 1.3 and see if that fixes it: the only issue is
convincing our IT team to move to 1.3 for production might not be that easy :(.
-Sachin
-- "Yonik Seeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't r
+1 for Grant's efforts! He put a lot of sweat into making this
release a reality.
Erik
On Sep 16, 2008, at 9:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
The Apache Solr team is happy to announce the availability of Solr
1.3.0 for public download. This version contains many enhancements
and b
The Apache Solr team is happy to announce the availability of Solr
1.3.0 for public download. This version contains many enhancements
and bug fixes, including:
- Distributed search capabilities
- Numerous Lucene and other performance improvements
- Support for multiple indexes in a single dep
is it possible to query out the stored data as, uh, tokens I suppose.
Then, index those tokens in the next index?
thanks
gene
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Gene Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was pretty sure you'd say that. But, I means lots that you take the
> time to confirm it.
OK thanks Otis. Any gut feeling on the best approach to get this
collapsed data? I hate to ask you to do my homework, but I'm coming
to the
end of my Solr/Lucene knowledge. I don't code java too well - used
to, but switched to Python a while back.
gene
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Otis
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Lance Norskog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As to why we have the same document in different shards with different
> contents: once you hit a certain index size and ingest rate, it is easiest
> to create a series of indexes and leave the older ones alone. In the futu
I was pretty sure you'd say that. But, I means lots that you take the
time to confirm it. Thanks Otis.
I don't want to give details, but we crawl for our data, and we don't
save it in a DB or on disk. It goes from download to index. Was a
good idea at the time; when we thought our designs were
I can't reproduce this with Solr 1.3
http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=%2b(text:solr)+%2b(text:of)+%2b(text:works)&debugQuery=true&rows=0
And the relevant fragment of the debugQuery is:
+(text:solr) +(text:of) +(text:works)
+(text:solr) +(text:of) +(text:works)
+text:solr +text:work
+text:solr
You can't copy+merge+flatten indices like that. Reindexing would be the
easiest. Indexing taking weeks sounds suspicious. How much data are you
reindexing and how big are your indices?
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: ris
I can't double check this, but assuming this is indeed a problem, please tell
us which version of Solr you are using, and if you are using anything older
than 1.3, could you please try to reproduce this with 1.3? I seem to recall
something similar being mentioned in the past
Otis
--
Semate
Gene,
The latest patch from Bojan for SOLR-236 works with whatever revision of Solr
he used when he made the patch.
I didn't follow this thread to know your original requirements, but running
1+10 queries doesn't sound good to me from scalability/performance point of
view.
Otis
--
Sematext --
Hi Sunny,
There is a very detailed page about this on the Wiki. Have you seen it?
Otis --
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: sunnyfr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:59:01 PM
Is it possible to copy stored index data from index to another, but
concatenating it as you go.
Suppose 2 categories A and B both with 20 docs, for a total of 40 docs
in the index. The index has a stored field for the content from the
docs.
I want a new index with only two docs in it, one for A
Hi folks,
We use the StopFilterFactory with the stopwords.txt provided as part of the
solr getting started example and just realized that if the stop word is
enclosed within a parentheses then solr just strips out the stop word and not
the parens and this causes 0 results being returned. for ex
thanks. very interesting. The plot thickens. And, yes, I think
field collapsing is exactly what I'm after.
I'm am considering now trying this patch. I have a solr 1.2 instance
on Jetty. I looks like I need to install the patch.
Does anyone use that patch? Recommend it? The wiki page
(http:/
Hi
Can you give me more explanation about how to manage index update
automatically
I would like to automatically update solr, obviously I have to run snapuller
??
And I would like to past data from master to slave's servers ?
Can you explain me a bit more about it ?
Thanks
Sunny
--
View this
: 1. Identify all records that would match search terms. (Suppose I
: search for 'dog', and get 450,000 matches)
: 2. Of those records, find the distinct list of groups over all the
: matches. (Suppose there are 300.)
: 3. Now get the top ranked record from each group, as if you search
: just
Hi, folks,
We're planning to use SOLR for our project, got some questions. It's a
very new experience for us so any help is really appreciated.
1) We're storing two types of documents; both have pretty much the same
fields (with a few extra fields for one type). The important thing is
that
Thanks for the reply Erik
Sorry for being vague. To be clear we have 1-2 million records, and
rough 12000-14000 groups.
Each record is in one and only one group.
I see it working something like this
1. Identify all records that would match search terms. (Suppose I
search for 'dog', and get 45
Personally, I'd send three requests for solr, one for each group.
&rows=1&fq=category:A ... and so on.
But that'd depend on how many groups you have.
One can always hack custom request handlers to do this sort of thing
all as a single request, but I'd guess it ain't that much slower to
ju
Yes your right I mistyped when I said [* : *]. I did mean [* TO *]
hossman wrote:
>
>
> : present and have a end date in the present/future or none at all. I had
> : looked into searching for null dates and had come across the -date[* :
> *]
> : syntax, which searches for the absence of the in
In this case someone outside SOLR is improperly dealing with
java.lang.VirtualMachineError in a thread outside of 'servlet'-pool.
It could be: JVM, Tomcat (dispatcher thread etc.), Lucene, STAX,
Jakarta Commons.
(of course not-stable hardware could also be a problem).
In some cases 'servlet
Hello All,
I'm looking for a way to filter results by some ranking mechanism.
For example...
Suppose you have 30 docs in an index, and they are in groups of 10, like this
A, 1
A, 2
:
A, 10
B, 1
B, 2
:
B, 10
C, 1
C, 2
:
C, 10
I would like to get 3 records back such that I get a single, "best"
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Fuad Efendi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SOLR catches everything and tries to
> output (sometimes with great success) HTTP 500 with XML-formatted stacktrace
> as content.
Right, as well as logging the exception.
But, it's never foolproof because the OOM exception c
I seen it so many times; after moving to JRockit JVM I had clean error
logs; after increasing memory such problems disappeared. In most cases
OOME happens when someone executes 'sorted' query. JVM behaviour in
case of catched OOME is very unpredictable... SOLR catches everything
and tries t
Hoss, thanks for the response and confirmation.
Yes, from reading the comments in the Lucene source of
MoreLikeThis.java I have now realized that the field used in the
TermQuery is "the top field that this word comes from". The
SimilarityQuery is restricted to this field only for the specific
word
: Is there a way to convert to integer to check if a = b ... like
: recip(myfield,m,language,lang)
: But I would like to boost(scoring) field which have the same user language
: and book language ...
:
: But for that I need to know convert.int(language)
There is an OrdFieldSource that can be use
Some highlighting stuff, most notably maxAnalyzedChars=-1 (SOLR-610) requires
Lucene 2.4 to work correctly.
Lars
: Document 1 is probably a better match since the word yahoo is present
: two times. That seems fine, although I did not expect to see the
: "content:" part in the list of interestingTerms.
...
: but the response is exactly the same as for the query without the mlt.qf.
:
: The problem see
: We have big problem searching out solr index and filtering for the date.
: Let me give you an example: there is a record with date 30.04.2008,
: 15:32:00. My query contains "+date:[20080101T12:00:00Z TO
: 20080915T13:59:00Z]" but the record is not found. But when I search
: "+date:[20071231T
That was it, thanks Shalin.
On Sep 16, 2008, at 1:41 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Jon Baer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For some reason my XPath attribute keeps failing to get picked up
here (is
that the proper format?):
Put a slash between node and
: present and have a end date in the present/future or none at all. I had
: looked into searching for null dates and had come across the -date[* : *]
: syntax, which searches for the absence of the index value for the field
: specified.
to clarify: that isn't valid syntax. i think you are confus
: If the query stars with a negative clause Lucene returns nothing.
that's not true. If a "Query" in lucene is a BooleanQuery that only
contains negative clauses, then Lucene returns nothing (because nothing is
positively selected) ... but it if there is a mix of negative lcauses and
positive
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Jon Baer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For some reason my XPath attribute keeps failing to get picked up here (is
> that the proper format?):
>
>
>
>
Put a slash between node and attribute.
--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
Hi,
For some reason my XPath attribute keeps failing to get picked up here
(is that the proper format?):
- Jon
If the query stars with a negative clause Lucene returns nothing.
endDate[NOW TO *] OR -endDate:[* TO *]
Might work
-Original Message-
From: Kolodziej Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:01 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: AW: Searching f
ryantxu wrote:
>
>
> Yes, include would get us some of the way there, but not far enough
> (IMHO). The problem is that (as written) you still need to have all
> the configs spattered about various directories.
>
>
I does not allow us to go *all* the way but it does allow to put
configu
ryantxu wrote:
...
Yes, I would like to see a way to specify all the fieldtypes /
handlers in one location and then only specify what fields are
available for each core.
So yes -- I agree. In 2.0, I hope to flush out configs so they are
not monstrous.
...
What about using "include" so each
ryantxu wrote:
>
> ...
> Yes, I would like to see a way to specify all the fieldtypes /
> handlers in one location and then only specify what fields are
> available for each core.
>
> So yes -- I agree. In 2.0, I hope to flush out configs so they are
> not monstrous.
> ...
>
What
Christian Kolodziej wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
>>I'm having a lot of trouble getting this query syntax to work correctly.
>>How
>>can I search for a date, which is either in the future OR missing
>>completely
>>(meaning open ended)
>>
>>I've tried -endDate:[* TO *] OR endDate[NOW TO *] but that do
SpellCheckComponent requires 2.4, apart from that I'm not sure. I guess one
can just try and see.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Lance Norskog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it possible to run Solr 1.3 with Lucene 2.3.2, the last official release
> of Lucene? We're running into a problem wit
I've seen plenty of OOMs logged :)
But you can run things like jconsole or jmap (with -heap or -histo or
-histo:live options) to see how the JVM is doing with memory.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: Peter Williams <[EMAIL PR
But you can't really have a good multi-lingual search with a single index and
without having content in different languages in different fields and analyzed
differently. So filtering by language field will "work", but won't work very
well as far as the "search experience" is concerned.
Otis
-
Thanks.
Does a message about what went wrong not get written to the log because by
the OOME happens there is not enough memory to actually construct the
message?
Peter
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Fuad Efendi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> SOLR main servlet catches all Throwable. In case of
I'm not 100% sure, but can't recall anything that would absolutely require 2.4.
However, a "memory leak" fix was committed to Lucene trunk only a few days ago
- if memory is your problem.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: La
Hi,
You can search using different fields and you can make such clauses required or
prohibited or "should occur".
You seem to be describing something more hierarchical, but perhaps you can just
make all clauses required.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
On Sep 16, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Jason Rutherglen wrote:
Hello Ryan,
SQL database such as H2
Mainly to offer joins and be able to perform hierarchical queries.
Also any other types of queries a hybrid SQL search system would
offer. This is something that is best built into SOLR rather than
Lu
Hello Ryan,
> SQL database such as H2
Mainly to offer joins and be able to perform hierarchical queries.
Also any other types of queries a hybrid SQL search system would
offer. This is something that is best built into SOLR rather than
Lucene. It seems like a lot of the users of SOLR work with
We are doing serach in solr on indexes, is it possible to search on the basis
of different fields.
For example we have a index created with fields author, title, ISBN and
phase. we want the search result first on the basis of author then title
match and then ISBN.
--
View this message in cont
thanks a lot,
Grant Ingersoll-6 wrote:
>
> trunk version is just the latest development version, and can be
> obtained via Subversion: svn checkout
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/solr/trunk
>
> See also http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HowToContribute
>
> Or, you could just wait for So
Hi Chris,
>I'm having a lot of trouble getting this query syntax to work correctly.
>How
>can I search for a date, which is either in the future OR missing
>completely
>(meaning open ended)
>
>I've tried -endDate:[* TO *] OR endDate[NOW TO *] but that doesn't work.
>Adding parentheses doesn't help
54 matches
Mail list logo
