You are right. The fix committed to source was not complete. I've
reopened SOLR-3336 and I will put up a test and fix.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3336
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM, harshchawla wrote:
> In the second reply of this link, it is discussed and more over I am facing
In the second reply of this link, it is discussed and more over I am facing
the same issue here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15734308/solrentityprocessor-is-called-only-once-for-sub-entities?lq=1.
See attached my data-config.xml of new core (let say) test
Hi Greg
Thanks for your reponse.
It works
2013/8/23 Greg Walters
> Finally something I can help with! I went through the same problems you're
> having a short while ago. Check out
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Running+Solr+on+HDFS for
> most of the information you ne
Hi,
The response from 4.4 and 3.5 in the current scenario differs in the
sequence in which results are given us back.
For example :
Response from 3.5 solr is : id:A, id:B, id:C, id:D ...
Response from 4.4 solr is : id C, id:A, id:D, id:B...
Looking forward your reply.
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Ni
On Aug 25, 2013, at 1:41 PM, Furkan KAMACI wrote:
> Sometimes Physical Memory usage of Solr is over %99 and this may cause
> problems. Do you run such kind of a command periodically:
>
> sudo sh -c "sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
>
> to force dropping caches of machine that Solr runs a
One of my Solr Nodes at SolrCloud (4.2.1) was down for a long time. I
restarted Solr and after recovery its Physical Memory usage is 99.5% and
does not decrease. Thats why I asked that question (I don't know is it
usual that Physical Memory did not decreased for 3 days. Why my CentOS 6.4
does not
Sometimes Physical Memory usage of Solr is over %99 and this may cause
problems. Do you run such kind of a command periodically:
sudo sh -c "sync; echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
to force dropping caches of machine that Solr runs at and avoid problems?
Hi Erick;
I wanted to get a quick answer that's why I asked my question as that way.
Error is as follows:
INFO - 2013-08-21 22:01:30.978;
org.apache.solr.update.processor.LogUpdateProcessor; [collection1]
webapp=/solr path=/update params={wt=javabin&version=2}
{add=[com.deviantart.reachmeh
ere:
I just resolved this same error.
The problem was that I had a lot of ampersands (&) that were un-escaped in
my XML doc
There was nothing wrong with my DIH; it was the xml doc it was trying to
consume.
I just used StringEscapeUtils.escapeXml from apache to resolve...
Another big help was the Eclipse
Kuchekar (hope that's your first name?)
you didn't tell us .. how they differ? do you get an actual error? or does the
result contain documents you didn't expect? or the other way round, that some
are missing you'd expect to be there?
- Stefan
On Sunday, August 25, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Kuchekar
Hi,
We get different response when we query 4.4 and 3.5 solr using same
query params.
My query param are as following :
facet=true
&facet.mincount=1
&facet.limit=25
&qf=content^0.0+p_last_name^500.0+p_first_name^50.0+strong_topic^0.0+first_author_topic^0.0+last_auth
Hi, right now I'm using the link field that comes in any rss entry as my
uniqueKey.
That was the best solution that I found because in many updated documents,
this was the only field that never changes.
Now I'm facing another problem. When I want to search for a document with
that id or link, beca
That issue was fixed in Solr 3.6 and 4.0-alpha. The latest Solr
releases already have that fix. Can you give more details on why you
think you are still affected by that bug?
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:29 PM, harshchawla wrote:
> According to
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15734308/solrentit
13 matches
Mail list logo
