Would the doc transformer have access to payloads?
On Dec 24, 2015 4:21 PM, "Upayavira" wrote:
> You could create a custom DocTransformer. They can enhance the fields
> included in the search results. So, instead of fl=somefield you could
> have fl=[my-filter:somefield], and your MyFieldDocTransf
I'm currently doing it in a middle tier, but it means I can't return
results from the index to users, instead it needs to always hit the store,
not the end of the world but was hoping I could use the fields in the index
as a quick first view and then get the full result when the user selected
an en
Hi Erick,
Thank you for your response and pointer. What I mean by running Lucene/SOLR
on Hadoop is to have Lucene/SOLR index available to be queried using
mapreduce or any best practice recommended.
I need to have this mechanism to do large scale row deduplication. Let me
elaborate why I need thi
I would do that in a middle tier. You can’t do every single thing in Solr.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
> On Dec 24, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Upayavira wrote:
>
> You could create a custom DocTransformer. They can enhance the fields
> includ
You could create a custom DocTransformer. They can enhance the fields
included in the search results. So, instead of fl=somefield you could
have fl=[my-filter:somefield], and your MyFieldDocTransformer makes the
decision as to whether or not to include somefield in the output.
This would of course
If you are going to go that far, you can get the parsed query from the
debug output, but seriously, if you are using a latest Solr and don't
need the stream.body functionality in MLT, then use the MLT query
parser, it is by far the best way to do it - as you get all the features
of other query pars
Sorry hit send too early
Is there a mechanism in solr/lucene that allows customization of the fields
returned that would have access to the field content and payload?
On Dec 24, 2015 4:15 PM, "Jamie Johnson" wrote:
> I have what I believe is a unique requirement discussed here in the past
> to l
I have what I believe is a unique requirement discussed here in the past to
limit data sent to users based on some marking in the field.
Well, actually points 2 and 3 _do_ depend on the stored
data. It's certainly true that the stored data won't
have to be re-analyzed if you're using FVH, but
the original text still needs to be present to highlight
anything that would make sense (consider stopwords,
stemming all that. The user reall
Here's an example of what Upayavira is talking about.
https://lucidworks.com/blog/2012/02/14/indexing-with-solrj/
It has some RDBMS bits, but you can take those out.
Best,
Erick
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> If your needs of Tika fall outside of those provided by the embed
One workaround is to use the 'important terms' feature to grab the query
generated by the MLT handler, then parse that list into your own solr query
to use through a standard search handler. That way, you can get the same
results as if you used the MLT handler, and you can also use filter
querying
Hi everyone,
Suppose I have the following fields in my schema:
And I index multiple latlon coordinates to a document.
Then I do a geofilt search against my index. When I do that geofilt
search, will ALL locations associated with that document have to be within
the 'circle' produced by geofi
I wouldn't worry about it. I doubt you could even
measure the change in overall cluster performance
even if all three leaders were on the same node.
The REBALANCELEADERS stuff was put in for
cases of having 100s of leaders on the same machine.
It won't hurt, but is almost certainly completely
unn
In the old jetty-based implementation of Basic Authentication, one could use
post.jar by running something like
java -Durl="http://user:pswd@host:8983/solr/corename/update";
-Dtype=application/xml -jar post.jar example.xml
By what mechanism does one pass in the user name and password to post.ja
Thank you! It really help me out.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Null-pointer-exception-in-spell-checker-at-addchecker-method-tp4105489p4247203.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Which morelikethis are you using? Handler, SearchComponent or
QueryParser?
You should be a able to wrap the mlt query parser with the boost query
parser with no problem.
Upayavira
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 05:18 AM, Binoy Dalal wrote:
> Have you tried applying the boosts to individual fields with
I haven't had a chance to review. If you have a reproducible failure on a
one-to-many join go ahead and create a jira ticket.
Joel Bernstein
http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 3:25 AM, Akiel Ahmed wrote:
> Hi
>
> Did you get a chance to check whether one-to-many joins were co
Maybe, you could have a look at REBALANCELEADERS to see if this solves your
usecase?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Collections+API#CollectionsAPI-RebalanceLeaders
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM, wrote:
> Hi guys ,
> i have a solr cluster of 3 nodes using solr cloud , and a co
Hi guys ,
i have a solr cluster of 3 nodes using solr cloud , and a collection of 3
shards , below is what's seen in cloud
Node 1 : shard1_replica1 , shard2_replica2Node 2 : shard2_replica1
, shard3_replica2Node 3 : shard1_replica2 , shard3_replica1
Leaders :
Shard 1 :Node
Great I must have missed that.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Jeff Wartes wrote:
> Looks like it’ll set partialResults=true on your results if you hit the
> timeout.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-502
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5986
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/22/15
Hi
Did you get a chance to check whether one-to-many joins were covered in
your tests? If yes, can you make any suggestions for what I could be doing
wrong?
Cheers
Akiel
From: Joel Bernstein
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date: 22/12/2015 13:03
Subject:Re: Solr 6 Distribut
21 matches
Mail list logo
