to be effectively ignored (see SOLR-12243)
> 3. upgrade to 8.0, which will restore the failsafe maxBooleanClauses,
> avoiding OOM but returning an error code for affected queries (which
> in your case sounds like most queries?) (see SOLR-13336)
>
> Michael
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 20
Hello All,
We recently upgraded from Solr 6.6 to Solr 7.7.2 and recently had spikes in
memory that eventually caused either an OOM or almost 100% utilization of
the available memory. After trying a few things, increasing the JVM heap,
making sure docValues were set for all Sort, facet fields (thou
Thanks Steve,
I'll test out that version.
Nick
On Feb 6, 2018 6:23 AM, "Steve Rowe" wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> I think this was fixed by https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/LUCENE-7878 in Solr 6.6.1.
>
> --
> Steve
> www.lucidworks.com
>
>
I have run into an issue with multi-word synonyms and a min-should-match
(MM) of anything other than `0`, *Solr version 6.6.0*.
Here is my example query, first with mm set to zero and the second with a
non-zero value:
With MM set to 0
select?fl=*&indent=on&wt=json&debug=ALL&q=EIB&qf=ngs_title%20n
t; >
> > Best,
> > Erick
> >
> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:25 AM, Steven White
> > wrote:
> > > Thank you Erick for pointing out about DocValues. I re-indexed my data
> > > with it set to true and my index size grew by 20%. Is this expecte
Although you did mention that you wont need to sort and you are using
mutlivalued=true. On the off chance you do change something like
multivalued=false docValues=false then this will come in to play:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7495
This has been a rather large pain to deal with i
https://wiki.apache.org/solr/MoreLikeThisHandler
Bottom of the page, using context streams. I believe this still works in
newer versions of Solr. Although I have not tested it on a new version of
Solr.
But if you plan on indexing the document anyways then just indexing and
then passing the ID to
There are only two ways I can think of to accomplish this and neither of
them are dynamically setting the suggester field as is looks according to
the Doc (which does sometimes have lacking info so I might be wrong) you
cannot set something like *suggest.fl=combo_box_field* at query time. But
maybe
Don't really get what "Q= {!dismax qf=address} "rek Dr*" - It is not
allowed since perfix in Quotes is not allowed" means, why cant you use
exact phrase matching? Do you have some limitation of quoting as you are
specifically looking for an exact phrase I dont see why you wouldn't want
exact matchi
You can use a combination of ngram or edgengram fields and possibly the
shingle factory if you want to combine words. Also might want to have it as
exact text with no query sloop if the two words, even the partial text,
need to be right next to each other. Edge is great for left to right ngram
is g
product of:
> 0.074107975 = idf(docFreq=6, docCount=6)
> 1.853831 = tfNorm, computed from:
> 4.0 = termFreq=4.0
> 1.2 = parameter k1
> 0.75 = parameter b
> 168.3 = avgFieldLength
> 83.591835 = fieldLength
> ',
> &#x
member?"],
> "strtitle":"healthcare description",
> "id":"
> http://localhost:4503/content/uhcdotcom/en/home/waysin/poc/upendra-custon/healthcare-description.html
> ",
> "tstamp":"2016-05-09T17:15:5
You can add the debug flag to the end of the request and see exactly what
the scoring is and why things are happening.
&debug=ALL will show you everything including the scoring.
Showing the result of the debug query should help you, or adding that into
your question here, decipher what is going o
13 matches
Mail list logo
