Yonik
Isee. Thank you for the updates.
On 4/3/2015 12:28 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Ryan Josal wrote:
Sorting the result set or the facets? For the facets there is
facet.sort=index (lexicographically) and facet.sort=count. So maybe you
are asking if you can sor
Bill Bell wrote:
> The limit is set to -1. But the average result is 300.
Okay, better. Well, somewhat better. But unless your values are very well
distributed, I would guess that your worst case is very high. Have you checked
if your performance problems are for specific queries?
One way is t
I'm having two problems with Solr 4.9.1. I can't upgrade yet, because
we are using a third-party plugin component that is not yet explicitly
qualified for anything newer than 4.9.0. The point release upgrade
seemed like a safe bet, because I know that we don't do API changes in
point releases. T
On 4/5/2015 12:32 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> So, the questions that I have are:
>
>1. It does look like Solr re-loads cores on configuration changes, is
>that true?
>2. If (1) is YES, do I still need to manually invoke a collection RELOAD
>explicitly after updating the configuration?
Ok
Clarification
The limit is set to -1. But the average result is 300.
The amount of strings stored in the field increased a lot. Like 250k to 350k.
But the amount coming out is limited by facet.prefix.
Would creating 900 fields be better ? Then I could just put the prefix in the
field nam
Thanks Jack! That was oversight on my end - I also assumed the
splitOnNumerics="1" and LowerCaseFilterFactory would be breaking out the
tokens. I tried again with generateWordParts="1" generateNumberParts="1" and it
seemed to work. Appreciate it.
Mike
From: Jack Krupansky
To: solr-use
You have to tell the filter what types of tokens to generate - words,
numbers. You told it to generate... nothing. You did tell it to preserve
the original, unfiltered token though, which is fine.
-- Jack Krupansky
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 3:39 AM, Mike L.
wrote:
> Solr User Group,
> I have a
William Bell wrote:
Sent: 05 April 2015 06:20
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Facet
> We increased our number of terms (String) in a facet by 50,000.
Do you mean facet.limit=5?
> Now we are getting an error when we facet by this field - so we switched it
> to
> facet.method=enum,
Solr User Group,
I have a non-multivalied field with contains stored values similar to this:
US100AUS100BUS100CUS100-DUS100BBA
My assumption is - If I tokenized with the below fieldType definition,
specifically the WDF -splitOnNumbers and the LowerCaseFilterFactory would have
have provided
