Oh, yeah. That was the only thing I did! to make dismax default, instead of
using defType=dismax, as I used to do!
Thanks for the clarification.
Sowmya.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Rafal Piekarski wrote:
> Check that you have used lucene query parser, not dismax or edismax. You
> can forc
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> my solr is coming to slowly reach its memory limits (8Gb) and the stats
> displays me a reasonable fieldCache (1800) but 4820 searchers. That sounds a
> bit much to me, each has been opened in its own time since the last restart
> about tw
Hello list,
my solr is coming to slowly reach its memory limits (8Gb) and the stats
displays me a reasonable fieldCache (1800) but 4820 searchers. That sounds a
bit much to me, each has been opened in its own time since the last restart
about two weeks ago.
What could be wrong in my solrconfi
Thanks a ton, Robert.
I checked out the latest nightly and changed the following in my
solrconfig.xml:
LUCENE_33
to
LUCENE_40
The new SynonymFilter loaded all the 1.9 million lines of synonyms in less
than 5 minutes! Awesome!
Thanks to all who developed this "huper duper" fast synonym filter!
Is there a suggested way to copy data in fields to additional fields that will
only be in a different core? Obviously I could index the data separately and I
could build that into my current indexing process but I'm curious if there
might be an easier, more automated way.
Thanks!
josh
That's right. It should work if I already know these values ahead of time,
however I want to use business rules to control display orders for different
search terms. Maybe I have to code it by myself. Thanks everyone.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Jayendra Patil <
jayendra.patil@gmail.com>
Check that you have used lucene query parser, not dismax or edismax. You can
force it with &defType=lucene
If ypu are using in default dismax then using &q.alt=*:* would work like &q=*:*
for lucene.
--
Rafał "RaVbaker" Piekarski
jid/xmpp: ravba...@gmail.com
mobile: +48 663 808 481
web: http
> Hi All
>
> I have a working Solr servlet and a Web Interfact calling
> this
> servlet...with a well sized index.
> I don't remember changing anything significantly over the
> past few hours,
> but iam facing a strange problem.
>
> while a query like: *:* is not returning any documents, a
> quer
Hi All
I have a working Solr servlet and a Web Interfact calling this
servlet...with a well sized index.
I don't remember changing anything significantly over the past few hours,
but iam facing a strange problem.
while a query like: *:* is not returning any documents, a query with some
specific t
Hi ERick,
Version of SOLR 3.0
We are indexing the data using CURL call from C interface to SOLR server
using REST.
We are merging 15,000 docs in a single XML doc and directly using CURL to
index the data and then calling commit. (update)
For each of the client, we are creating a new connection
Requesting the community for feedback one more time - Does anyone have any
suggestions/comments regarding this?
Thanks in advance,
Prasanna
On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Prasanna R wrote:
>
> We use a dismax handler with mm 1 in our Solr installation. I have a
> fieldType defined that crea
I will look at that. Thanks Shalin!
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar <
shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Way Cool wrote:
>
> > Hi, guys,
> >
> > What's the best way (practice) to do index distribution at this moment?
> > Hadoop? or rsyncd (ba
Hi,
I am using solr 3 and highlighting is working fine. However when using
prefix query like tel*, the highlighter highlights the whole matching words
(i.e. television, telephone, ...). I am highlighting a very short field
(3~5 words length).
How can I prevent the highlighter from doing so? I
Actually I retract last comment - the patch on SOLR-2066 looks like it could
work after all...it gets further but then dies in the
HighlightComponent..
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/A-rant-about-field-collapsing-tp3222798p3229194.html
Sent from the Solr -
Hi Erick,
We are having a requirement where we are having almost 100,000 documents to
be indexed (atleast 20 fields). These fields are not having length greater
than 10 KB.
Also we are running parallel search for the same index.
We found that it is taking almost 3 min to index the entire documen
Thank you Bill and Ludovic!
I changed field type to text instead of string and now it is working
perfectly!
Thank you very much for such a quick help!!!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Problem-with-making-Solr-query-tp3228877p3228941.html
Sent from the Solr -
Hi,
if you are using the schema from the Solr example, the fields with the type
"string" are not analyzed.
You should find a "text" field type or you can create one like shown in this
example:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/trunk/solr/example/solr/conf/schema.xml?view=markup
take a look
String does no manipulation. You might need to switch the fieldtype. Also make
sure your default field is title or add title:implementation in your search.
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
On Aug 5, 2011, at 8:43 AM, dhryvastov wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I am new to Solr and Lucene and I have started to r
One more note:
If I send the following url http://localhost:8983/solr/db/select/?q=*:* then
I see the first 10 records and numFound="26" as expected.
Tried to do the same using Java API, the results is identical...
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Problem-with
Hi -
I am new to Solr and Lucene and I have started to research its capabilities
this week. My current task seems very simple (and I believe it is) but I
have some issue.
I have successfully done indexing of MSSQL database table. The table has
probably 20 fields and I have indexed two of them: id
> How does one issue span queries in
> SOLR (Span, SpanNear, etc)? I've
> done a bit of research and it seems that these are not
> supported. It
> would seem that I need to implement a QueryParserPlugin to
> accomplish
> this. Is this the correct path? Surely this has been done
> before. Does
> an
Sorry - should have read the manual:
"Distributed search support for result grouping has not yet been
implemented."
I wonder if this is planned for any time soon?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2066 looks like it was more field
collapsing based than grouping?
--
View this message i
Many thanks.
I took your changes for the following commits:
SOLR-2642
SOLR-2637
SOLR-2523
I have gone withhout the group.main option as on hindsight it is quite
useful to use the GroupCommand and Group objects with the results -
especially group.ngroups has optimized our code where we used to pe
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 7:33 AM, alexander sulz wrote:
> Usually you get a XML-Response when doing commits or optimize, in this case
> I get nothing
> in return, but the site ( http://[...]/solr/update?optimize=true ) DOESN'T
> load forever or anything.
> It doesn't hang! I just get a blank page /
As far as I know there is no built-in solution for this like there is for
max score.
An alternative approach to the one already mentioned is to send a second
request with rows=1 and sort=score asc
This will return the lowest scoring document and you can then retrieve the
score from that document (i
Usually you get a XML-Response when doing commits or optimize, in this
case I get nothing
in return, but the site ( http://[...]/solr/update?optimize=true )
DOESN'T load forever or anything.
It doesn't hang! I just get a blank page / empty response.
I use the stuff in the example folder, the onl
Hi all,
I have documents which are (manually) tagged whith categories. Each
category-document relation has a weight between 1 and 5:
5: document fits perfectly in this category,
.
.
1: document may be considered as belonging to this category.
I would now like to use this information with so
Hi Josh,
Solr doesn't expose this Lucene feature yet. To support this Solr needs to
be able to index documents in a single block.
Also the BlockJoinQuery needs to be exposed to Solr (this can easily happen
via a QParserPlugin).
Martijn
On 5 August 2011 00:00, Joshua Harness wrote:
> I noticed
But that would mean returning all the results without pagination which i
dont want to do. I am looking for a way to do it without having to return
all the results at once.
Thanks.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Darren Govoni wrote:
> Off the top of my head you "maybe" you can get the number o
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Way Cool wrote:
> Hi, guys,
>
> What's the best way (practice) to do index distribution at this moment?
> Hadoop? or rsyncd (back to 3 years ago ;-)) ?
>
>
See http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrReplication
--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar.
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:38 AM, anand sridhar wrote:
> Ok. After analysis, I narrowed the reduced results set to the fact that the
> zipcode field is not indexed 'as is'. i.e the zipcode field values are
> broken down into tokens and then stored. Hence, if there are 10 documents
> with zipcode fie
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Pawan Darira wrote:
>
> I would like to know whether i can add new fields while replicating index
> on
> Slave. E.g. My Master has index with field "F1" which is created with type
> "string". Now, i don't want "F1" as a type "string" & also have limitation
> that i
32 matches
Mail list logo
