em doesn't happen for me
there. Is the change deliberate?
Thanks,
Liam
On 13 April 2011 23:25, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Apr 13, 2011, at 12:06 AM, Liam O'Boyle wrote:
>
> > Afternoon,
> >
> > After an upgrade to Solr 3.1 which has largely b
Afternoon,
After an upgrade to Solr 3.1 which has largely been very smooth and
painless, I'm having a minor issue with the ExtractingRequestHandler.
The problem is that it's inserting metadata into the extracted
content, as well as mapping it to a dynamic field. Previously the
same configuration
Elastic Search ?)
>>
>>
>> Then the last option is probably to build an application that works with a
>> document repository with all necessary content management features and Solr
>> which provides search capability; and handling the permissions outside Solr?
>> t
hat way you
> will pass in fewer parameters in the fq.
>
> -sujit
>
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 11:53 +1100, Liam O'Boyle wrote:
> > Morning,
> >
> > We use solr to index a range of content to which, within our application,
> > access is restricted by a syst
Morning,
We use solr to index a range of content to which, within our application,
access is restricted by a system of user groups and permissions. In order
to ensure that search results don't reveal information about items which the
user doesn't have access to, we need to somehow filter the resu
* Yes, a PECL package would be faster. However, in 99% of the cases, after
> everything is said, coded, and byte-code cached, my biggest bottlenecks end
> up being the database and network.
> * Last of all, choice is what open source means to me.
>
> Burak
>
>
>
>
>
Hi Savannah,
You can only reindex the entire document; if you only have the ID,
then do a search to retrieve the rest of the data, then reindex. This
assumes that all of the fields you need to index are stored (so that
you can retrieve them) and not just indexed.
Liam
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:
Hi Chris,
Yes, I saw the facet.range.include feature and briefly tried to implement it
before realising that it was Solr 3.1 only :) I agree that it seems like
the best solution to problem.
Reindexing with a +1MILLI hack had occurred to me and I guess that's what
I'll do in the meantime; it just
Evening,
I'm trying to break down the data over a year into facets by month; to avoid
overlap, I'm using -1MILLI on the start and end dates and using a gap of
+1MONTH.
However, it seems like February completely breaks my monthly cycles, leading
to incorrect counts further down the line; facets th
In response to myself,
The problem occurs because the date ranges are inclusive. I can fix
this by making facet.date.gap = +1MONTH-1SECOND, but is there a way to
specify that the upper bound is exclusive, rather than inclusive?
Liam
On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 16:54 +1100, Liam O'Boyle
Afternoon,
I have a strange problem occurring with my date faceting. I seem to
have more results in my facets than in my actual result set.
The query filters by date to show results for one year, i.e.
ib_date:[2000-01-01T00:00:00Z TO 2000-12-31T23:59:59Z], then uses date
faceting to break up the
tty trivial.
>
>
> On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Liam O'Boyle wrote:
>
> > Afternoon,
> >
> > I've got a large collections of documents which I'm attempting to add to
> > a Solr index using Tika via the ExtractingRequestHandler, but there are
> > a
Afternoon,
I've got a large collections of documents which I'm attempting to add to
a Solr index using Tika via the ExtractingRequestHandler, but there are
a large number that it has problems with (PDFs, PPTX and XLS documents
mainly).
I've tried them with the most recent stand alone version of
13 matches
Mail list logo
