I believe it becomes a federator and resends the request to the leader, but
someone else more intimately familiar can correct me.
Devansh Dhutia
Development Manager, Content Ingestion
USA TODAY Network
From: SOLR4189
Reply-To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org"
Date: Friday, June 8, 2018 at 6:03 AM
iki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/DocValues
>
>On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Dhutia, Devansh
>wrote:
>
>> We have an existing collection with a field called lastpublishdate of type
>> tdate. It already has a lot of data indexed, and we want to add docValues
>>
We have an existing collection with a field called lastpublishdate of type
tdate. It already has a lot of data indexed, and we want to add docValues to
improve our sorting performance on the field.
The old field definition was:
We we recently changed it to
Is that considered a breaking c
We are using aws, and standardized deployments using Chef.
As Jeff points out below, Exhibitor is a good tool to deploy with Zookeeper.
We’ve had very good luck with it.
On 10/20/15, 7:59 PM, "Jeff Wartes" wrote:
>
>If you’re using AWS, there’s this:
>https://github.com/LucidWorks/solr-sca
If I upgrade to using the edismax parser in my fq, I get the desired
results.
The default lucene parser on fq must not be able to parse the more complex
nested clauses
q=*:*&fq={!type=edismax}((-(field:V1) AND -(field:V2)) AND -(field:V3)) -
Works
On 4/22/15, 3:27 PM, "Dhutia
2 PM, "Jack Krupansky" wrote:
>A purely negative sub-query is not supported by Lucene - you need to have
>at least one positive term, such as "*:*, at each level of sub-query. Try:
>
>((*:* -(field:V1) AND -(field:V2)) AND -(field:V3))
>
>-- Jack Krupansky
>
&
I have an automated filter query builder that uses the SolrNet nuget package to
build out boolean filters. I have a scenario where it is generating a fq in the
following format:
((-(field:V1) AND -(field:V2)) AND -(field:V3))
The filter looks legal to me (albeit with extra parentheses), but the
