also check the timing in debugQuery=true...
I suspect most of the time should be spent in:
process:
On Nov 11, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Manepalli, Kalyan wrote:
Hi Otis,
I tested by taking out the newly added synonyms data and the query
time
was back to normal ~125ms.
I will verify the debugQue
Yeah. Though, 20 seconds still sounds like crazy, not something that I'd
expect from that not terribly complex and demanding query. It's hard to tell
where exactly the bottleneck is without looking at the server and a few other
things.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Sol
Hi,
It's hard to tell what you are replying to since you removed the original email
(sounds like somebody suggested using bq).
I think it might help if you send the actual URL you are using.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
F
I'll assume you are using the rsync-based replication, not SOLR-561.
In that case, bwlimit is your friend. You'll have to modify the scripts and
make use of this:
--bwlimit=KBPS
This option allows you to specify a maximum transfer rate in
kilobytes per second. This option i
Right. With Distributed Search you are limited to # of shards *
Integer.MAX_VALUE.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
From: Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:38
why is the id field multivalued? is there a uniqueKey in the schema ?
Are you sure there are no duplicates?
look at the status host:post/dataimport gives you the status
it can give you some clue
--Noble
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Giri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have about ~ 2
tried removing the plusses i am inserting but now shows too many
results
&fq=+i_subjects:Film+i_subjects:+media+i_subjects:+mass+communication
fq is a multi-valued field, try calling it like:
&fq=i_subjects:Film&fq=i_subjects:mass communication&fq=...
ryan
In the application I m applying URLEncoding on the search string
thus the
entire search string gets converted into :
http://localhost:8080/apache-solr-1.3.0/core51043/select/?
q=Sigma+Survey+for+Police+Officers%26field%3DIndex_Type_s
%3AproductIndex%26field%3DproductType_s%3Aproduct%26f
Any component can use the VariableResolver . If you write a custom
transformer that too can use it
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:40 AM, Mauricio Aristizabal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Noble, that worked beautifully.
>
> What wasn't initially apparent to me was that a transformer can use the s
On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Matthew Runo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
What happens when we use another in this case? I was
under the
assumption that if we say styleId then our
doc IDs
will be our styleIds.
Is there a secondary ID that'
if performance is a problem, you can try adding the synonyms at index
time... this should give you similar results without the runtime
results.
The obvious disadvantage is that you need to have the synonyms at
index time...
On Nov 11, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Manepalli, Kalyan wrote:
Hi Otis,
Hello. We have an index with 15 million documents working on a distributed
environment, with an index distribution setup. While an index on a slave
server is being updated, query response times become extremely slow (upwards
of 5 seconds). Is there any way to decrease the hit query response times
did you try debugQuery=true?
(i don't know what it does off hand... perhaps nothing, but it may add
something for MLT)
On Nov 11, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Jeff Newburn wrote:
Thanks Otis! I understand what the parameters do to help modify for
the
most part. What I am trying to understand is how
So the bq parameter works with the standard request handler (I don't have to
specify defType=dismax)??
I've been running a few tests and it doesn't seem to be picking up the bq.
I've boosted one of the values very high (like 1000) compared to the other
fields and it doesn't seem to be affecting
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM, Matthew Runo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What happens when we use another in this case? I was under the
> assumption that if we say styleId then our doc IDs
> will be our styleIds.
>
> Is there a secondary ID that's kept internal to Solr/Lucene in this case?
Ther
What happens when we use another in this case? I was under
the assumption that if we say styleId then our
doc IDs will be our styleIds.
Is there a secondary ID that's kept internal to Solr/Lucene in this
case?
Thanks for your time!
Matthew Runo
Software Engineer, Zappos.com
[EMAIL PROTE
Thanks Otis! I understand what the parameters do to help modify for the
most part. What I am trying to understand is how the related items are
related. Certain search results return thousands of documents that are
related but since I have 6 fields involved in the search I have no idea why.
What
Hi,
I have about ~ 2 million records in a mySQL database table (about 9 fields
from a single table), and I am trying to load it to the solr using
DataImportHandler using the command=full-import option. it only indexed
about 615360 records out of 2 millions.
here is my db-data-config.xml
Thanks Noble, that worked beautifully.
What wasn't initially apparent to me was that a transformer can use the same
notation as in the query attribute (e.g. ${parententityname.fieldname} ) to
access fields from parent entities, which allows them to merge data from
multiple related rows, not just d
Jeff, have you tried various mlt.min/max* params listed on
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/MoreLikeThis?
Those are the knobs that will let you control quality of MLT results.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
From: Jeff Newburn <[
Hi All,
Anybody know of how to get some useful debugging information for
morelikethis search component in SOLR 1.4? I am trying to make the results
more relevant to each product. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find a way
to get information that would be useful to find out what is matching. I
h
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Burton-West, Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Yonik,
>
> Thanks for the NIO suggestion. We are using Linux, but our indexes are
> NFS mounted.
That may be your biggest performance problem right there - try on a
local index and see what the difference is.
> I t
Tom, have you tried copying your index to the local disk to see if that
resolves the locking problem?
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
From: "Burton-West, Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: "Farber, P
Hi Yonik,
Thanks for the NIO suggestion. We are using Linux, but our indexes are
NFS mounted. I thought I saw something about problems with NIO and NFS,
but am fuzzy on the details.
These results are with Solr 1.2 and I'm wondering if even without the
NIO change, upgrading to Solr 1.3 might hel
Hi Otis,
Since I have expand="true" in SynonymFilterFactory, the
DebugQuery shows the query is expanded with all the synonyms.
Eg;
Without synonym the query is:
Review:amaz | name:amaz | description:amaz
With Synonym the query is:
(Review:amaz Review:fabul Review:improbable Review:incred
Thank you very much for your response (and sorry for bothering and NOT
paying attention to the warning at the top of the URL).
Regards,
Lucas.
2008/11/11 Shalin Shekhar Mangar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hi Lucas,
>
> The new replication is targeted for Solr 1.4 (the next major release) which
> is yet
Hello everyone ! I'm new in the Solr list. I'va been using Solr 1.2 for a
while and also the replication through rsync. As the new Solr was released I
tried the new replication method,
so I read : http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrReplication. There it says :
"Replication feature is implemented as a
Hi Lucas,
The new replication is targeted for Solr 1.4 (the next major release) which
is yet to happen. For 1.3, you still need to use the rsync based
replication.
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:08 AM, banished phantom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hello everyone ! I'm new in the Solr list. I'va been
Lucas,
Did you upgrade to version 1.4 of solr? The replication is very newly
implemented and not available until very recently.
-Jeff
On 11/11/08 10:38 AM, "banished phantom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello everyone ! I'm new in the Solr list. I'va been using Solr 1.2 for a
> while and als
Note that the Java replication feature is Solr 1.4 and above. You'll
need to try a nightly or trunk build to get to this feature for now.
Erik
On Nov 11, 2008, at 1:38 PM, banished phantom wrote:
Hello everyone ! I'm new in the Solr list. I'va been using Solr 1.2
for a
while and al
Doc ID gaps are zapped during segment merges and index optimization.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
From: Norberto Meijome <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 6:45:01 PM
Subject:
Hi Otis,
I tested by taking out the newly added synonyms data and the query time
was back to normal ~125ms.
I will verify the debugQuery and update you with the results
Thanks,
Kalyan Manepalli
-Original Message-
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11,
Otis Gospodnetic schrieb:
Hi Ralf,
Your subject mentions SolrJ, but I don't see any SolrJ code in your email.
It looks as if you are messing with Solr's own code.
thx for you help...
Greets
Hi Ralf,
Your subject mentions SolrJ, but I don't see any SolrJ code in your email.
It looks as if you are messing with Solr's own code.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
From: "Kraus, Ralf | pixelhouse GmbH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
That doesn't sound normal, no. Do you know what your query looks like after
synonym expansion? (you can use debugQuery=true or peek at the logs) Is that
really the only thing that changed? In other words, if you comment out the
SynonymFactory in solrconfig.xml and restart Solr do things
Hi all,
I recently implemented query time synonyms in my application
and I am seeing drastic performance degradation.
The synonyms file is counts around 1000 words.
The average querytime without synonyms is around 125 ms and with
synonyms it jumps to 20 secs.
Am I missing something
Ok. I have managed to get the search component added (You rock Grant). I
am having some interesting issues now with the suggestions. We sell shoes
online so I am trying to get it to spellcheck for brand name.
When I search konverse with spelling on it returns converse correctly
however when I s
Hi,
I want to use a SolrIndexSearcher for some special searches in my app...
I startup my Solr with two cores in it (core_de & core_uk).
But when I try this then my Solr Server generates a complete new cory
instead of
using the existing one...
After 5-6 searches I run out of memory :-(
Examp
Hi Jeff,
A SearchComponent allows you to connect functionality with any Request
Handler, allowing you to inline spelling requests (or other things
like MoreLikeThis) with your queries, saving you from having to make
an extra request.
I walk through a lot of this in my article on Solr 1.3
Hey there,
Is there any way to use dataimporthandler with deduplication together just
doing xml configuration?
I have read that deduplication (http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Deduplication)
is meant to be used with the handler named /update (wich uses
solr.XmlUpdateRequestHandler class).
If there's
Hello,
I have problem with two fields. In query I am use q.op=AND but I would like
use in two first fields OR.
Example:
iTitle:(+keyword 1 +keyword2) OR iDescription:(+keyword 1
+keyword2)+iUser:"12345"+iType:"1"
This query not work :(
Please help. Sorry for my english.
--
View this message i
2008-11-11 16:47:36 org.apache.solr.handler.dataimport.SolrWriter upload
: Error creating document : SolrInputDocumnt[{}]
org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Document [null] missing required
field: id
at
org.apache.solr.update.DocumentBuilder.toDocument(DocumentBuilder.java:289)
at
org.ap
That worked! I was writing in a bad way the
> It seems like your data-config does not have any tag. The
> following is the correct structure:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Marc Sturlese
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey there,
>> I am trying to use the
43 matches
Mail list logo
