Hello, Paresh.
Please examine debugQuery output, otherwise 'doesn't work' is vague.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:31 AM Paresh wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am trying wild-card query with query, filter query with and without !join
> and finding it difficult to understand the SOLR behavior.
>
> (-) wild-card
Hi All,
I am trying wild-card query with query, filter query with and without !join
and finding it difficult to understand the SOLR behavior.
(-) wild-card like 12* in query: field:12* works well
(-) wild-card like 12* in query with {!join to=... from=...}field:12* -->
works well
(-) wild-card li
The best way is always to test yourself. I have used Solr 8.1 / 8.2 with
OpenJDK11 on RHEL 7. OpenJDK11 was chosen as this will be the minimal
compatible one in Solr 9.0 and because older JDKs are already out of support.
however, I don’t know in how far this is comparable with your setting.
> A
Hi Support,
We are looking at upgrading the SOLR from version 7.2 to version 8.1. Could we
please check if SOLR version 8.1 is compatible with Oracle Enterprise Linux 7.
Thank you!
Kind Regards,
Susnigdha.
This message is for the designated recipient only and
It looks like the rule created before was wrong.
From the solr documentation below
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_6/rule-based-replica-placement.html
For a given shard, keep less than 2 replicas on any node
For this rule, we use the shard condition to define any shard, the replica
condit
I am also facing the same issue. With Solr 7.6 restore fails with below rule.
Would like to place one replica per node by below rule
with the rule to place one replica per node
"set-cluster-policy": [{
"replica": "<2",
"shard": "#EACH",
"node": "#ANY"
}]
Without the
This is strange -- I can't reproduce, and I can't see any evidence of a
change to explain why this might have been failing 8 days ago but not any
more.
Are you still seeing this error?
The lines in question are XML comments inside of (example) code blocks (in
the ref-guide source), which is
Another thing to add to the above,
>
> IT:ibm. In this case, we would want to maintain the colon and the
> capitalization (otherwise “it” would be taken out as a stopword).
>
stopwords are a thing of the past at this point. there is no benefit to
using them now with hardware being so cheap.
On Tu
If you don't want it to be touched by a tokenizer, how would the
protection step know that the sequence of characters you want to
protect is "IT:ibm" and not "this is an IT:ibm term I want to
protect"?
What it sounds to me is that you may want to:
1) copyField to a second field
2) Apply a much lig
Hi All,
This is likely a rudimentary question, but I can’t seem to find a
straight-forward answer on forums or the documentation…is there a way to
protect tokens from ANY analysis? I know things like the
KeywordMarkerFilterFactory protect tokens from stemming, but we have some terms
we don’t e
On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 10:18 -0700, Wei wrote:
> /solr/mycollection/select?stats=true&stats.field=unique_ids&stats.cal
> cdistinct=true
...
> Is there a way to block certain solr queries based on url pattern?
> i.e. ignore the stats.calcdistinct request in this case.
It sounds like it is possible f
Hi,
Starting with Solr 7.0 all JMX metrics are actually internally driven by the
metrics API - JMX (or Prometheus) is just a way of exposing them.
I agree that we need more documentation on metrics - contributions are welcome
:)
Regarding your specific examples (btw. our mailing lists aggressi
It's worth to raise an issue for supporting timeAllowed for stats. Until
it's done, something like jetty filter is only an option,
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:34 AM Wei wrote:
> Hi Mikhail,
>
> Yes I have the timeAllowed parameter configured, still is this case it
> doesn't seem to prevent the sta
13 matches
Mail list logo
