The memory leak seems to be in:
org.apache.solr.handler.component.ShardFieldSortedHitQueue
I think our issue might be related to this one, because this change has
been introduced in 4.7 and has changes to ShardFieldSortedHitQueue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5354
Is the memor
OK, something is not right here. What are
your autocommit settings? What you pasted
above looks like you're looking at a searcher that
has _just_ opened, which would mean either
1> you just had a hard commit with openSearcher=false happen
or
2> you just had a soft commit happen
In either case, the
Kranti and Susheel's appoaches are certainly
reasonable assuming I bet right :).
Another strategy is to rack together N
indexing programs that simultaneously
feed Solr.
In any of these scenarios, the end goal is to get
Solr using up all the CPU cycles it can, _assuming_
that Solr isn't the bottle
: Reason: In an index with millions of documents I don't want to know that a
: certain query matched 1 million docs (of course it will take time to
: calculate that). Why don't just stop looking for more results lets say
: after it finds 100 docs? Possible??
but if you care about sorting, ie: you
I did more deep diving and found out the following exception while it tries
to replicate.
135531514-ERROR - 2014-03-07 23:08:35.454;
org.apache.solr.common.SolrException; SnapPull failed
:org.apache.lucene.store.AlreadyClosedException: Already closed
135531665- at
org.apache.solr.core.CachingDirec
Hi;
What's your performance expectation for qps (query per second)?
Thanks;
Furkan KAMACI
7 Mar 2014 08:50 tarihinde "Priti Solanki" yazdı:
> Thanks Susheel,
>
> But this index will keep on growing that my worry So I always have to
> increase the RAM .
>
> Can you suggest how many nodes one can
Hi
While multiple indexing jobs are running [all are map reduce jobs hard
committing at the end of every mapper], the Old gen utilization spikes a
lot and CMS aggressively tries to keep the mem usage < 70% of the heap [I
set this to trigger CMS when heap is 70%]. CPU utilization is hardly
aroun
: Thank-you, that all sounds great. My assumption about documents being
: missed was something like this:
...
: In that situation D would always be missed, whether the cursorMark 'C or
: greater' or 'greater than B' (I'm not sure which it is in practice), simply
: because the cursorMark is
Hi All,
I am facing a strange behavior with the Solr Server. All my joins are not
working suddenly after a restart. Individual collections are returning the
response but when I join the collection , I am getting zero documents. Let me
know if anyone have same type of issues.
Forgot to attach the log during the recovery failed
solr.log.129:1625677:ERROR - 2014-03-06 13:29:31.909;
org.apache.solr.common.SolrException; Error while trying to
recover:org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Replication for recovery
failed.
solr.log.129-1625849- at
org.apache.solr.cloud.Recove
We have an API on top of Lucene 4.6 that I'm trying to adapt to running
under Solr 4.6. The problem is although I'm getting the correct offsets
when the index is created by Lucene, the same method calls always return -1
when the index is created by Solr. In the latter case I can see the
character o
On 3/7/2014 11:58 AM, Furkan KAMACI wrote:
> Hi;
>
> I have a cluster as SolrCloud of 4.5.1 When I use a Solrj version greater
> than 4.5.1 I get an error when deleting a document via CloudSolrServer of
> Solrj. When I change the version to 4.5.1 as it works as usual.
>
> I know that I should us
Hi there
I have a 6 node solrcloud cluster with 50 collections. All collections
are sharded across all the 6 nodes. I am seeing a weird behavior where both
the replicas for a shard go to down to go to a "recovering" state and
never come back (No specific corelation to writes or reads).
I manu
Hi Joel,
Although I solved this issue with a custom CollectorFactory, I also have a
solution that uses a PostFilter and and optional ValueSource.
Could you take a look at SOLR-5831 and see if I've got this right?
Thanks,
Peter
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> Peter,
>
On 3/7/2014 11:54 AM, leevduhl wrote:
> In prep for a production setup I have a few questions that I would like to
> get some feedback on:
> 1) By default everything is running from under the "example" folder which
> does not make much sense for a production environment. So is it possible to
> re-
Hi;
I have a cluster as SolrCloud of 4.5.1 When I use a Solrj version greater
than 4.5.1 I get an error when deleting a document via CloudSolrServer of
Solrj. When I change the version to 4.5.1 as it works as usual.
I know that I should use same versions to avoid compatibility issues.
However I
We are currently running Solr 4.6.1 in a dev/testing environment running on
top of CentOS 6.x 64bit w/12 gigs ram.
Not being real familiar with Linux and Solr we basically just copied the
Solr-4.6.1 folder/file structure right into the "var" folder of the server
and launched the Solr engine with t
Problem resolve. Once we got JTS properly installed all was well.
Lee
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Polygon-search-returning-InvalidShapeException-incompatible-dimension-2-error-tp4121704p4122081.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabb
hi Ahmet,
thank you for the reply.
i'd give it a try with some sample docs tomorrow.
thank you!
Cq
At 2014-03-08 00:52:01,"Ahmet Arslan" wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>Looks like totaltermfreq (ttf) is equals to collection frequency.
>Please see other relevancy functions :
>http://wiki.apache.
Hi,
Looks like totaltermfreq (ttf) is equals to collection frequency.
Please see other relevancy functions :
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#Relevance_Functions
Ahmet
On Friday, March 7, 2014 6:38 PM, cqlangyi wrote:
hi Ahmet,
thank you, quite clear!!!
so now i could get 'df' vi
> IndexSchema is using 62% of the memory
That seems odd. Can you see what objects are taking all the RAM in
the
IndexSchema?
We investigated this and found out that a dictionary was loaded for
each core, taking loads of memory. We the the config to
shareSchema=true. The memory usage decreas
hi Ahmet,
another followed question is:
is there any methods to get 'cf' for each document?
thanks a lot.
Cq
At 2014-03-08 00:06:50,"Ahmet Arslan" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>You already gave examples, using your example documents :
>
>>1. "fox jump over the gray dog, fox gone"
>>2. "fox is a kin
hi Ahmet,
thank you, quite clear!!!
so now i could get 'df' via 'LukeRequestHandler', but
how about 'cf', could i get it somehow?
thanks!
Cq
At 2014-03-08 00:06:50,"Ahmet Arslan" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>You already gave examples, using your example documents :
>
>>1. "fox jump over the
Hi,
Please optimize your index (you can do it core admin GUI) and see if problem
goes away.
Ahmet
On Friday, March 7, 2014 1:18 PM, epnRui wrote:
Hi guys!
I solved my problem on the client side but at least I solved it...
Anyway, now I have another problem, which is related to the followi
Hi,
You already gave examples, using your example documents :
>1. "fox jump over the gray dog, fox gone"
>2. "fox is a kind of animal, dog also is"
>3. "i like red fox"
collection frequency : cf('fox') = 4 = tf('fox',d1) + tf('fox',d2) +
tf('fox',d3) = 2 + 1 + 1 = 4
document frequency : df('f
We parsed the "Unreachable Objects" of the memory dump.
The memory leak seems to be in:
org.apache.solr.handler.component.ShardFieldSortedHitQueue
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hdv49xlb4g4wi03/Screenshot%202014-03-07%2016.51.56.png
Martin
hi Ahmet,
thank you very much for the reply.
i'm just a little bit confused about "collection frequency" & "document
frequency",
would you mind help me out with these 2 phrases?
thank you!
Cq
At 2014-03-07 22:43:34,"Ahmet Arslan" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Thats collection frequency (cf). Ter
On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Avishai Ish-Shalom wrote:
> SOLR-5216
Yes, that is the one.
- Mark
http://about.me/markrmiller
Hi,
After you delete your document, did you commit with expungeDeletes=true?
Also please see : https://people.apache.org/~hossman/#xyproblem
Ahmet
On Friday, March 7, 2014 1:16 PM, epnRui wrote:
Hi iorixxx!
Thanks for replying. I managed to get around well enough not to need a
tokenizer cu
Hi,
Thats collection frequency (cf). TermsComponent could be modified to report cf
instead of document frequency(df).
Ahmet
On Friday, March 7, 2014 10:49 AM, cqlangyi wrote:
hi there,
i have a question with following example.
say i have only 3 documents indexd,
1. "fox jump over the g
I know about numFound. That's where the issue is.
On a complex query that takes mins I think there would be a major chunk of
that spent in calculating "numFound" whereas I don't need it. Let's say I
just need first 100 docs and then want SOLR to STOP looking further to
populate the "numFound".
Le
Hi guys!
I solved my problem on the client side but at least I solved it...
Anyway, now I have another problem, which is related to the following:
- I had previously used replace chars and replace patterns, charfilters and
filters, at index time to replace "EP" by "European Parliament". At that
you limit the number of results by using the rows parameter. You query
however may hit more documents (stored in numFound of the response) that
what will be returned back to you as rows prescribes.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> All,
Hi iorixxx!
Thanks for replying. I managed to get around well enough not to need a
tokenizer customized implementation. That would be a pain in ...
Anyway, now I have another problem, which is related to the following:
- I had previously used replace chars and replace patterns, charfilters and
Hi,
i am running into the exact same problem:
27534 [qtp989080272-12] INFO org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore – [collection1]
webapp=/solr path=/replication
params={command=details&_=1394164320017&wt=json} status=0 QTime=12
28906 [qtp989080272-12] INFO org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore – [collection1
On 7 March 2014 15:18, Salman Akram wrote:
> All,
>
> Is it possible to get partial counts in SOLR? The idea is to get the count
> but if its above a certain limit than just return that limit.
>
> Reason: In an index with millions of documents I don't want to know that a
> certain query matched 1
All,
Is it possible to get partial counts in SOLR? The idea is to get the count
but if its above a certain limit than just return that limit.
Reason: In an index with millions of documents I don't want to know that a
certain query matched 1 million docs (of course it will take time to
calculate t
hi there,
i have following questions, please help me out, very appreciate.
say i have a field configured as "text_general" type, and indexed 3 pieces
content as documents.
1. "today is a good day"
2. "call your family every day"
3. "come with me"
how could i count the total (even roughly) wor
hi there,
i have a question with following example.
say i have only 3 documents indexd,
1. "fox jump over the gray dog, fox gone"
2. "fox is a kind of animal, dog also is"
3. "i like red fox"
with query "http://localhost/solr/admin/luke?fl=myfield&numTerms=5
solr give back the "top terms" a
hi there,
i have following questions, please help me out, very appreciate.
say i have a field configured as "text_general" type, and indexed 3 pieces
content as documents.
1. "today is a good day"
2. "call your family every day"
3. "come with me"
how could i count the total (even roughly) wor
Some events close and reopen the searcher. Commit is the main one
during lifetime of Solr server. So, you can read this "until commit".
Of course, you have soft and hard commits with settings to reopen or
not reopen the searcher, so you may want to read up on that if you are
trying to understand th
Thanks Alex,
But what is mean by "...lifetime of that searcher." Is is lifetime of any
particular query or what.?
Sorry but i am not able to understand this. :(
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/What-is-mean-by-Index-Searcher-tp4121898p4121912.html
Sent from
SOLR-5216 ?
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:13 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
> It sounds like the distributed update deadlock issue.
>
> It's fixed in 4.6.1 and 4.7.
>
> - Mark
>
> http://about.me/markrmiller
>
> On Mar 6, 2014, at 3:10 PM, Avishai Ish-Shalom
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > We've had a strange
43 matches
Mail list logo
