f the missing "q" parameter exactly as you suggested: by
putting q=*:* in the defaults portion of the request handler and we started
getting our results again.
-Original Message-----
From: Lee, Peter
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:19 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Lo
but one thing at a time I suppose.
Thanks.
Peter S. Lee
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Heisey [mailto:s...@elyograg.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 4:54 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Looking to see if solrj 3.5 could be used with solr server 4.2.1
On 5/14/2013 1:44 PM, Lee,
all likelihood solr
4.2 as well). I will check tomorrow to find what specific changes were
needed for it to work with solr 4.x.
-Bob
On Mon, 13 May 2013 02:11:02 +
"Lee, Peter" wrote:
> Shawn,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I did read carefully through your thread
&g
unday, May 12, 2013 10:34 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: Lee, Peter
Subject: Re: Looking to see if solrj 3.5 could be used with solr server 4.2.1
On 5/11/2013 11:36 PM, Lee, Peter wrote:
> If you have any information regarding whether or not this might work (as in
> "yeah, we
Heisey [mailto:s...@elyograg.org]
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:22 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Looking to see if solrj 3.5 could be used with solr server 4.2.1
On 5/11/2013 9:36 PM, Lee, Peter wrote:
> I've reviewed all of the release notes and we've been doing testing
I've reviewed all of the release notes and we've been doing testing to see if
solrj that came with solr 3.5 would work with solr server 4.2.1. We are not
using any of the new features of 4.2.1...we upgraded purely for the improved
performance and much smaller memory footprint of the indexes. Whi
in it. That is the one
that I hand to my application.
This way, you can loose any node in any shard and the thing should keep on
going.
Obviously I'm talking about slaves here. There will be a master for each shard
which each of these nodes pull their indexes from.
Hope this is helpful.
