Sure.
Here the fq's docsets are intersected
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/trunk/solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/search/SolrIndexSearcher.java#L864
and here
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/trunk/solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr/search/SolrIndexSearcher.java#L1471that
do
Hello,
I would like to know fq parameters doesnt deal with scoring so on,,, I have
been digging the code, to see where it separates and executes fq parameters
but couldnt find yet...
anyone knows how does fq work to skip score information?
-
Zeki ama calismiyor... Calissa yapar...
--
View
Colleagues,
What are benefits of this approach at contrast to block join?
Thanks
10.12.2012 3:35 пользователь "Lance Norskog" написал:
> If these are not raw times, but quantized on-the-hour, would it be
> faster to create a bit map of hours and then query across the bit
> maps?
>
> On Sun, Dec
Hmmm...EOF on the segments file is odd...
How were you killing the nodes? Just stopping them or kill -9 or what?
- Mark
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Alain Rogister wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have re-ran my tests today after I updated Solr 4.1 to apply the patch.
>
> First, the good news : it works i
Yeah it is - this was fixed a while ago on 4x and will be in 4.1.
An exception would kill the collection manager wait loop.
- Mark
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Brett Hoerner wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> It looks like my cluster is in a wedged state after I tried to delete a
> collection that didn't
Thanks,
It looks like my cluster is in a wedged state after I tried to delete a
collection that didn't exist. There are about 80 items in the queue after
the delete op (that it can't get by). Is that a known bug?
I guess for now I'll just check that a collection exists before sending any
deletes.
If these are not raw times, but quantized on-the-hour, would it be
faster to create a bit map of hours and then query across the bit
maps?
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Thanks for the discussion, I've added this to my bag of tricks, way cool!
>
> Erick
>
>
> On Sat, Dec
Hi,
Thanks for the package, it is useful. I decided to adapt it to Lucene trunk
(ver. 5.0-SNAPSHOT). The package with the source code and a binary (dir:
target) can be found along the same link. It worked fine against trunk SOLR
/ Lucene index. There could be bugs though, please drop a line if yo
Thank you very much will wait for the results from your tests.
From: "Mark Miller-3 [via Lucene]"
mailto:ml-node+s472066n4025457...@n3.nabble.com>>
Date: Saturday, December 8, 2012 11:08 PM
To: "Sarkar, Sauvik" mailto:sausar...@ebay.com>>
Subject: Re: SolrCloud - Query performance degrades with m
Thanks for the discussion, I've added this to my bag of tricks, way cool!
Erick
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:52 PM, britske wrote:
> Brilliant! Got some great ideas for this. Indeed all sorts of usecases
> which use multiple temporal ranges could benefit..
>
> Eg: Another Guy on stackoverflow ask
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> see: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DistributedSearch
>
> joins aren't supported in distributed search. Any time you have more than
> one shard in SolrCloud, you are, by definition, doing distributed search.
It is supported, but there is a limi
I am looking for getting auto complete suggestions using Solr based on
keyword as well as geolocation. Is there a way the 'Suggester' component or
any other way, Solr can take in multiple fields for auto completion?
For e.g. if I have a restaurants database and I want to get suggestions
using keyw
12 matches
Mail list logo
