Hi list,
I've been working the last couple days on some synonym functionality and
I've been reading about the limitations regarding query-time multi-word
synonyms. All recommended solutions that I've come across so far suggest
using the SynonymFilter at index time rather than at query time.
Unfor
It's okay to not use the SynonymFilter for querying and for indexing. In
fact, you would really only want to use one or the other: either index all
synonyms, or query for them, but not both.
I have read that there are issues with multi-word synonyms and my guess is
that this is where your problem
Hi,
I am wondering if there is a way to set a filter on the frequency of a
keyword match in a document. For example, if I search for the word "cheerio"
I would like that word to appear at least x times in a field in order for
the document to be returned. I know that Lucene internals already give
h
running into memory issues?
> >
> > Otis
> > --
> > Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message
> >> From: Mark Ferguson
> >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> >> Sent:
Hi,
I am trying to come up with a strategy for a solr setup in which a user's
indexed data can be nearly immediately available to them for search. My
current strategy (which is starting to cause problems) is as follows:
- each user has their own personal index (core), which gets committed
after
Hello,
I am wondering if the UpdateResponse status codes are documented somewhere?
I haven't been able to find them. I know 0 is success..
Thanks,
Mark
>
> > What I'm also curious about is how searchers are handled in a multi-core
> > environment. Does the maxWarmSearchers argument apply to the entire set
> of
> > cores, or to each individual core?
>
>
> It applied to one core unless ofcourse, you are sharing the solrconfig.xml
> with multiple cor
Hello,
My apologies if this topic has already been discussed but I haven't been
able to find a lot of information in the wiki or mailing lists.
I am looking for more information about how searchers work in different
environments. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that in a
singl
Dir, so this is probably just something I screwed up, so
feel free to ignore this email.
Mark
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Mark Ferguson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a problem with setting the instanceDir property for the cores in
> solr.xml. When I set the value to be relative, it
Hello,
I have a problem with setting the instanceDir property for the cores in
solr.xml. When I set the value to be relative, it sets it as relative to the
location from which I started the application, instead of relative to the
solr.home property.
I am using Tomcat and I am creating a context f
Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ्
> wrote:
> > I shall give a patch today
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Mark Ferguson
> > wrote:
> >> Oh I see, thanks for the clarification.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately this brings me back to same problem I start
e variables explicitly in
> solrconfig.xml/schema.xml
> instead of hardcoding dataDir in solrconfig.xml you can use it as a
> variable $$dataDir
>
> BTW there is an issue (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-943)
> which helps you specify the dataDir in solr.xml
>
>
> On
Hi,
In my solr.xml file, I am trying to set the dataDir property the way it is
described in the CoreAdmin page on the wiki:
However, the property is being completed ignored. It is using whatever I
have set in the solrconfig.xml file (or ./data, the default value, if I set
nothing in that fi
com> wrote:
> This is a known issue. I'll try to give a patch soon.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-883
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Mark Ferguson
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am trying to set up a multi-core environment in which I
Hi,
I am trying to set up a multi-core environment in which I share a single
conf folder. I am following the instructions described in this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/solr-user@lucene.apache.org/msg16954.html
In solrconfig.xml, I am setting dataDir to /srv/solr/cores/data/${
solr.core.na
gh. Thanks for
the fix.
Mark
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Mark Ferguson
> wrote:
> > It seems that the problem is related to the defType parameter. When I
> > specify defType=, it uses the correct request handler. It
using debugQuery=true (and the fact that I get no results when I
specify a field).
Can someone try reproducing this using the configuration I specified in my
first post? Sorry again for being confusing, I got sidetracked by the
caching issue.
Mark
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Mark Ferguson
handler configuration.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Mark Ferguson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my solrconfig.xml file there are two request handlers configured: one
> uses defType=dismax, and the other doesn't. However, it seems that when the
> dismax request handler is set as my defau
Hi,
In my solrconfig.xml file there are two request handlers configured: one
uses defType=dismax, and the other doesn't. However, it seems that when the
dismax request handler is set as my default, I have no way of using the
standard request handler . Here is the relevant part of my solrconfig.xml
urned, even if
there are no keyword matches. I also want all documents with keyword matches
to be returned, even when the user_id doesn't match, so I can't just switch
the query and the boost query.
Any ideas? Thanks for your time.
Mark
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Mark Ferguson
Hello,
It looks like a boost query will accomplish what I am looking for quite
nicely.
Mark
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Mark Ferguson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a set of documents in which I have different classes of fields that
> I would like to search separately. For exam
can specify
which fields correspond to which sets of keywords. Has anything like this
been tackled before? If not, can someone help point me in the right
direction for how I would build this myself? Thanks very much for your time.
Regards,
Mark Ferguson
he/solr/client/solrj/response/QueryResponse.html#getResults%28%29>
>
> returns a SolrDocumentList
>
>
> http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/common/SolrDocumentList.html
>
> which has that information
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Mark Ferguson >wro
these attributes just not publically available? If they're
not, shouldn't they be? Thanks a lot,
Mark Ferguson
level SolrHighlighter is the component that uses that parameter. So yes, it
> must be specified at the request handler level, not the fragmenter
> configuration.
>
>Erik
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2008, at 7:35 PM, Mark Ferguson wrote:
>
> It seems like maybe the fragmenter parame
e fragmenter.
Mark
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 5:08 PM, Mark Ferguson wrote:
> Thanks for this tip, it's very helpful. Indeed, it looks like none of the
> highlighting parameters are being included. It's using the correct request
> handler and hl is set to true, but none of the h
m to actually be including its parameters... Any ideas are appreciated,
thanks again for the help.
Mark
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> Try adding echoParams=all to your query to verify the params that the
> solr request handler is getting.
>
> -Yonik
>
&
e:
> Shouldn't you escape the question mark at the end too?
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Mark Ferguson >wrote:
>
> > Someone helped me with the regex and pointed out a couple mistakes, most
> > notably the extra quantifier in .*{400,600}. My new regex is this:
>
using this attribute not to be read? It has me concerned that
other attributes are being ignored as well.
Thanks,
Mark Ferguson
o end with punctuation. Any ideas
would else could be wrong?
Mark
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Mark Ferguson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to use the regex fragmenter and am having a hard time getting
> the results I want. I am trying to get fragments that start on a word
ing period and the last two words,
there is plenty of room in the slop and in the regex pattern. Please help me
figure out what I'm doing wrong...
Thanks a lot,
Mark Ferguson
n.php
01598a6e06190bd8b05c8b03f51233a1
The reason I would prefer this second response format is because I don't
need the first field, and it greatly simplifies my call to
QueryResponse.getBeans() in SolrJ, as it will fill in everything I need in
one call.
Thanks very much,
Mark Ferguson
irectory 2. Conversely, a search for dir_id:2 will not return directory B.
I hope I understood your question correctly.
Mark Ferguson
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Jana, Kumar Raja wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any plans of supporting user-defined classifications on Solr? Is there
> any compo
33 matches
Mail list logo
