at 9:41 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 2/2/2017 7:23 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> > When i try to rollback from 6.4.0 to my original version of 6.0.1 it now
> > throws another issue. Now I cant go to 6.4.0 nor can I roll back to 6.0.1
> >
> > Could not load codec 'L
es one by one and keep an eye on
> the overseer status.
>
>
> On 02.02.2017 10:52, Ravi Solr wrote:
>
>> Following up on my previous email, the intermittent server unavailability
>> seems to be linked to the interaction between Solr and Zookeeper. Can
>> somebody help me
2017 at 4:52 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> Following up on my previous email, the intermittent server unavailability
> seems to be linked to the interaction between Solr and Zookeeper. Can
> somebody help me understand what this error means and how to recover from
> it.
>
> 2
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)
at
java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:617)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> Hello,
> Yesterday I upgraded from
Hello,
Yesterday I upgraded from 6.0.1 to 6.4.0, its been straight 12
hours of debugging spree!! Can somebody kindly help me out of this misery.
I have a set has 8 single shard collections with 3 replicas. As soon as I
updated the configs and started the servers one of my collection got
ach
> > collection that references that configset.
> >
> > Best,
> > Erick
> >
> > P.S. Two bits:
> > 1> actually the collections API uses the core admin calls to
> > accomplish its tasks, but
> > lots of effort went in to doing exactly the righ
Awesome nugget Shawn, I also faced similar issue a while ago while i was
doing a full re-index. It would be great if such tips are added into FAQ
type documentation on cwiki. I love the SOLR forum everyday I learn
something new :-)
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Shawn
Hello Remi,
Iam assuming the field where you store the data is analyzed.
The field definition might help us answer your question better. If you are
using edismax handler for your search requests, I believe you can achieve
you goal by setting set your "mm" to 100%, phrase slop "ps" and q
est to one shard.
> (In that case, you might get partial results)
>
> Can you share HTTP request url and the schema and default search field ?
>
>
> 2015-10-02 6:09 GMT+09:00 Ravi Solr :
>
> > I we migrated from 4.7.2 to 5.3.0. I sourced the docs from 4.
I we migrated from 4.7.2 to 5.3.0. I sourced the docs from 4.7.2 core and
indexed into 5.3.0 collection (data directories are different) via
SolrEntityProcessor. Currently my production is all whack because of this
issue. Do I have to go back and reindex all again ?? Is there a quick fix
for this ?
sync.
> See if it might have happened to you:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/201412.mbox/%3CCAOOKt53XTU_e0m2ioJ-S4SfsAp8JC6m-=nybbd4g_mjh60b...@mail.gmail.com%3E
> On Sep 27, 2015 06:56, "Ravi Solr" wrote:
&
s, just kept getting the same docList back
> over and over again. Marching through based on the unique key should not
> have the same potential issue.
>
> You should not be mixing the new query stuff with CURSORMARK. Deep paging
> supposes the exact same query is being run over
51
2015-09-26 19:00:13 INFO [com.wpost.search.reindexing.AdhocCorrectUUID] -
Indexed 5/0
2015-09-26 19:00:13 INFO [com.wpost.search.reindexing.AdhocCorrectUUID] -
FINISHED !!!
The query still returned 0 results when they are over million docs
available which match uuid:sun.org.mozilla* ...Th
Thank you Erick & Shawn for taking significant time off your weekends to
debug and explain in great detail. I will try to address the main points
from your emails to provide more situation context for better understanding
of my situation
1. Erick, As part of our upgrade from 4.7.2 to 5.3.0 I re-in
000/0
2015-09-26 01:48:22 INFO [a.b.c.AdhocCorrectUUID] - FINISHED !!!
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> Erick as per your advise I used cursorMarks (see code below). It was
> slightly better but Solr throws Exceptions randomly. Please look at the
> c
nt + "/" +
docList.getNumFound());
if (cursorMark.equals(nextCursorMark)) {
done = true;
client.commit(true, true);
}
cursorMark = nextCursorMark;
}
} catch (Exception e) {
log.error("
er.commit(true, true), then it doesn't return until a new
> searcher is completely opened so your previous updates will be
> reflected in your next search.
>
> Actually, what I'd really do is
> 1> turn off all auto commits
> 2> go ahead and query/change/upd
ent-cursor-based-iteration-of-large-result-sets/
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Ravi Solr > wrote:
> > No problem Walter, it's all fun. Was just wondering if there was some
> other
> > good way that I did not know of, that's all 😀
;
> Good luck.
>
> wunder
> Walter Underwood
> wun...@wunderwood.org
> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 2015, at 2:59 PM, Ravi Solr > wrote:
> >
> > Walter, Not in a mood for banter right now Its 6:00pm on a friday and
>
mit.
>
> wunder
> Walter Underwood
> wun...@wunderwood.org
> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 2015, at 2:17 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> >
> > I have been trying to re-index the docs (about 1.5 million) as one of the
> > field need
I have been trying to re-index the docs (about 1.5 million) as one of the
field needed part of string value removed (accidentally introduced). I was
issuing a query for 100 docs getting 4 fields and updating the doc (atomic
update with "set") via the CloudSolrClient in batches, However from time t
Recently I installed 5.3.0 and started seeing weird exception which baffled
me. Has anybody encountered such an issue ? The indexing was done via DIH,
the field that is causing the issue is a TrieDateField defined as below
Looking at the following exceptions it feels like a wrong exception,
ity
nection manager.
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>
> > Thank you Anshum & Upayavira.
> >
> > BTW do any of you guys know if CloudSolrClient is ThreadSafe ??
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
> >
&
hrased
> or removed. Can you create a JIRA for the same?
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:35 PM, Ravi Solr > wrote:
>
> > Can somebody kindly help me understand the difference between the
> following
> > startup calls ?
> >
> > ./solr start -p -s
Can somebody kindly help me understand the difference between the following
startup calls ?
./solr start -p -s /solr/home -z zk1:2181,zk2:2181,zk3:2181
Vs
./solr start -c -p -s /solr/home -z zk1:2181,zk2:2181,zk3:2181
What happens if i don't pass the "-c" option ?? I read the document
n cloud mode, which use Zookeeper.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015, at 04:59 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> > Cant thank you enough for clarifying it at length. Yeah its pretty
> > confusing even for experienced Solr users. I used the upconfig and
> > linkconfig commands t
uot;cores" here. Although
> it's true that a replica in a collection is just another core, it's
> "special" in that it has certain very specific properties set. I
> _strongly_ advise you stop thinking about old-style Solr cores and
> instead thing about coll
ort worked yesterday, not really
> sure what happened, the file shouldn't just disappear
>
> Erick
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> > Thank you for the prompt response Erick. I did a full-import yesterday,
> you
> > are correct that
FWIW,
> Erick
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> > I am facing a weird problem. As part of upgrade from 4.7.2 (Master-Slave)
> > to 5.3.0 (Solrcloud) I re-indexed 1.5 million records via DIH using
> > SolrEntityProcessor yesterday, all of them indexed
I am facing a weird problem. As part of upgrade from 4.7.2 (Master-Slave)
to 5.3.0 (Solrcloud) I re-indexed 1.5 million records via DIH using
SolrEntityProcessor yesterday, all of them indexed properly. Today morning
I just ran the DIH again with delta import and I lost all docs...what am I
missing
an example API call, but for your scenario, the
> > > replicationFactor will be 4 (replicationFactor=4). In this way, all 4
> > > machines will have the same copy of the data and you can put an LB in
> front
> > > of those 4 machines.
> > >
> > > On Wed
ctions?action=CREATE&name=test&configName=test&numShards=1&replicationFactor=2
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>
> > Thank you very much for responding Sameer so numShards=0 and
> > replicationFactr=4 if I have 4 machines ??
> >
>
a load balancer in front of it that removes the
> dependency on a single node. One of them will assume the role of a leader,
> and in case that leader goes down, one of the replicas will be elected as a
> leader and your application will be fine.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Wed, Sep 16,
Hello,
We are trying to move away from Master-Slave configuration to a
SolrCloud environment. I have a couple of questions. Currently in the
Master-Slave setup we have 4 Machines 2 of which are indexers and 2 of them
are query servers. The query servers are fronted via Load Balancer.
Ther
!!?? ;-)
Hope you have already viewed "The Expert" video on YouTube :-)
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 5/20/2015 9:07 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> > I have read that solr 5.x has moved away from deployable WAR architecture
>
I have read that solr 5.x has moved away from deployable WAR architecture
to a runnable Java Application architecture. Our infrastructure/standards
folks are adamant about not running SOLR on Jetty (as we are about to
upgrade from 4.7.2 to 5.1), any ideas on how I can make it run on Glassfish
or at
)
What I intended to do here is - if it matched a more recent doc it will
take recency into consideration, however if the relevancy is better than
date boost we keep relevancy. What do you guys think ??
Thanks,
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> Jo
n query is sorted by publish_date. Then the results are
> reranked
> >> by
> >> > *:*, which in theory would have no effect at all.
> >> >
> >> > The reRankQuery only uses the reRankQuery to re-rank the results. The
> >> sort
> >&g
&fl=headline,publish_date,score
> >
> > Is doing the following:
> >
> > The main query is sorted by publish_date. Then the results are reranked
> by
> > *:*, which in theory would have no effect at all.
> >
> > The reRankQuery only uses the reRankQ
lts are reranked by
> *:*, which in theory would have no effect at all.
>
> The reRankQuery only uses the reRankQuery to re-rank the results. The sort
> param will always apply to the main query.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joel Bernstein
> Search En
elp.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >>
> >> Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Joel Bernstein <mailto:joels...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > If you want the main query to be sorted by da
gt;>
> >>> Hope i am clear. Thanks for your help.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Joel Bernstein <mailto:joels...@gmail.
; >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Joel Bernstein <mailto:joels...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > If you want the main query to be sorted by date then the top N docs
> >> > reranked by a query, that should work. Try something like this:
eer at Heliosearch
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>
> > Can the ReRanking API be used to sort within docs retrieved by a date
> field
> > ? Can somebody help me understand how to write such a query ?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
> >
>
Can the ReRanking API be used to sort within docs retrieved by a date field
? Can somebody help me understand how to write such a query ?
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
y please see :
> http://www.slideshare.net/lucenerevolution/potter-timothy-boosting-documents-in-solr
> >
> > Regarding "docs containing all words" there is function query that
> elevates those docs to top. Search existing mailing list past posts.
> >
> > A
Hello,
I have a weird relevancy requirement. We search news content hence
chronology is very important and also relevancy, although both are mutually
exclusive. For example, if the search terms are - malaysia airline crash
blackbox - my requirements are as follows
docs containing all word
Sorry Guys, really apologize for wasting your time...bone headed coding on
my part. Did not set the rows and start to correct values for proper
pagination so it was getting the same 10 docs every single time.
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> I j
I just tried even reading from one core A and indexed it into core B and
the same issue still persists.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Lan wrote:
> Ravi,
>
> It looks like you are re-indexing data by pulling data from your solr
> server
> and then indexing it back to the same server. I can th
dler -
end_commit_flush
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> Thank you very much for responding Mr. Høydahl. I removed the recursion
> which eliminated the stack overflow exception. However, I still
> encountering my main problem with the doc
h new queries all the time - because high offsets/start can be
> time consuming, especially with multiple shards. If you increase the
> timeout enough you should be able to retrieve all documents in one go!
>
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.c
Hello,
We are trying to reindex as part of our move from 3.6.2 to 4.6.1
and have faced various issues reindexing 1.5 Million docs. We dont use
solrcloud, its still Master/Slave config. For testing this Iam using a
single test server reading from it and putting back into same index.
We send
I apologize for intruding, Shawn, do you know what can cause empty params
(i.e. params={}) ?
Ravi
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 5/6/2013 1:25 PM, cleardot wrote:
>
>> My SolrJ client uses ConcurrentUpdateSolrServer to index > 50Gs of docs
>> to a
>> SOLR 3.6 instance
work.
Thanks,
Ravi
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:54 PM, varun srivastava wrote:
> Hi Ravi,
> I am getting same probelm . You got any solution ?
>
> Thanks
> Varun
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > We have a Solr 3.
r paranoid security folks wanted me to
not reveal our ports so I put it as 80 without thinking :-), I assure use
that its not 80.
Thanks,
Ravi
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 3:14 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>
>> We are using Solr 3.6.2 with a single core setup
We are using Solr 3.6.2 with a single core setup on a glassfish server,
every 4-5 hours the server gradually gets into a some kind of a
inconsistent state and stops accepting any queries giving back cached
results. Even the core reload fails giving the following. Has anybody
experienced such behavi
ainer...so somehow it is getting swallowed by solr...Iam not able to
figure out how and why ?
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 4/26/2013 1:01 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> > Hello Shawn,
> > We found that it is unrelated to the g
same results as *:*
2. If I query via solrj no results are returned.
This has been driving me nuts for almost a week. Any help is greatly
appreciated.
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> Thanks for your advise Shawn. I have created a JIRA issue S
If you place the elevate.xml in the data directory of your index it will be
loaded every time a commit happens.
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> I believe (but don't know for sure) that the QEV file is re-read on
> core reload, which the same a
Thanks for your advise Shawn. I have created a JIRA issue SOLR-4743.
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 4/20/2013 9:08 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> > Thanks you very much for responding Shawn. I never use IE, I use firefox.
> > These are brand new servers and
status=400 QTime=9 |#]
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 12:55 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>
>> We are using Solr 3.6.2 single core ( both index and query on same
>> machine)
>> and randomly the server fails to query corr
Hello,
We are using Solr 3.6.2 single core ( both index and query on same machine)
and randomly the server fails to query correctly. If we query from the
admin console the query is not even applied and it returns numFound count
equal to total docs in the index as if no query is made, and if use SO
Hello,
We are using Solr 3.6.2 single core ( both index and query on same machine)
and randomly the server fails to query correctly. If we query from the
admin console the query is not even applied and it returns numFound count
equal to total docs in the index as if no query is made, and if use SO
Hello,
We have a Solr 3.6.2 multicore setup, where each core is a complete
index for one application. In our site search we use sharded query to query
two cores at a time. The issue is, If one core has docs but other core
doesn't for an elevated query solr is throwing a 500 error. I woudl rea
Yes the index size increased after turning on termPositions and termOffsets
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:13 PM, wrote:
> Did index size increase after turning on termPositions and termOffsets?
>
> Thanks.
> Alex.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ori
Hello,
We re-indexed our entire core of 115 docs with some of the
fields having termVectors="true" termPositions="true" termOffsets="true",
prior to the reindex we only had termVectors="true". After the reindex the
the query component has become very slow. I thought that adding the
term
Thank you very much Hoss, I knew I was doing something stupid. I will
change the dynamic fields to stored="false" and check it out.
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
> : I have a weird problem, Whenever I read the doc from solr and
> : the
System.out.println("Updated name in contentid -
" + contentid);
}
}
Ravi Kiran
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gopal Patwa wrote:
> Instead addfield method use setfield
> On Oct 10, 2012 9:54 AM, "Ravi Solr" wrote:
>
>> Gopal I did in fact
, Gopal Patwa wrote:
> You need remove field after read solr doc, when u add new field it will
> add to list, so when u try to commit the update field, it will be multi
> value and in your schema it is single value
> On Oct 10, 2012 9:26 AM, "Ravi Solr" wrote:
>
>
Do you have a "_version_" field in your schema. I believe SOLR 4.0
Beta requires that field.
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Andrew Groh wrote:
> I cannot seem to get delete by query working in my simple setup in Solr 4.0
> beta.
>
> I have a single collection and I want to
Hello,
I have a weird problem, Whenever I read the doc from solr and
then index the same doc that already exists in the index (aka
reindexing) I get the following error. Can somebody tell me what I am
doing wrong. I use solr 3.6 and the definition of the field is given
below
Exception i
The replication finally worked after I removed the compression setting
from the solrconfig.xml on the slave. Thanks for providing the
workaround.
Ravi Kiran
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> Wow, That was quick. Thank you very much Mr. Siren. I shall remove the
> compr
pression">internal from the config and it should work.
>
> --
> Sami Siren
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I have a very simple setup one master and one slave configured
>> as below, but replication keeps failing with
Hello,
I have a very simple setup one master and one slave configured
as below, but replication keeps failing with stacktrace as shown
below. Note that 3.6 works fine on the same machines so I am thinking
that Iam missing something in configuration with regards to solr
4.0...can somebody ki
configuration. :-)
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> I have already triple cross-checked  that all my clients are using
> same version as the server which is 3.6
>
> Thanks
>
> Ravi Kiran
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM,
I have already triple cross-checked that all my clients are using
same version as the server which is 3.6
Thanks
Ravi Kiran
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Ramesh K Balasubramanian
wrote:
> I have seen similar errors before when the solr version and solrj version in
> the client don't match.
!ex%3Ddt+key%3D"Past+12+Months"}displaydatetime:[NOW/DAY-1YEAR+TO+NOW/DAY%2B1DAY]&facet.query={!ex%3Ddt+key%3D"All+Since+2005"}displaydatetime:[*+TO+NOW/DAY%2B1DAY]&fsv=true&f.contenttype.facet.limit=160&isShard=true&NOW=1337083963338&wt=javabin&vers
be causing this issue of null/empty response. If the
server holds up during the weekend then we have the culprit :-)
Thanks to all of you who helped me out. Stay tuned.
Ravi Kiran
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 5/10/2012 4:17 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>>
>>
HttpSolrServer.java:333)
at
org.apache.solr.client.solrj.impl.HttpSolrServer.request(HttpSolrServer.java:211)
at
org.apache.solr.client.solrj.request.QueryRequest.process(QueryRequest.java:89)
... 43 more
|#]
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Shawn Heisey w
I clean the entire index and re-indexed it with SOLRJ 3.6. Still I get
the same error every single day. How can I see if the container
returned partial/nonconforming response since it may be hidden by
solrj ?
Thanks
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> Hello
;ll have to look elsewhere...
>>
>> But this is all guesswork, just like every bug... things are only obvious
>> after
>> you find the problem!
>>
>> Best
>> Erick
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>>> T
ns OK, but then
> fails sometime later.
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Â Â Â Â We Recently we migrated our SOLR 3.6 server OS from Solaris
>> to CentOS and from then on we started seeing "Invalid version
>&g
:09 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
>
>> Thanking you in anticipation,
>
> Generally this happens because the webapp server is returning an html error
> response of some kind. Often it's a 404.
>
> I think in trunk this might have been addressed - that is, it's easier to se
Hello,
We recently we migrated our production SOLR 3.6 servers OS
from Solaris to CentOS and from then on we started seeing "Invalid
version (expected 2, but 60)" errors on one of the query servers
(oddly one other query server seems fine). If we restart the
problematic server everything re
Hello,
We Recently we migrated our SOLR 3.6 server OS from Solaris
to CentOS and from then on we started seeing "Invalid version
(expected 2, but 60)" errors on one of the query servers (oddly one
other query server seems fine). If we restart the server having issue
everything will be alri
Hello folks,
We are trying to access JMX data from SOLR 3.6 multi-core
setup and feed it into Nagios. Once we reload the core the JMX no more
works and we cannot get any data. Prior to moving to SOLR 3.6, I heard
that SOLR-2623 might have fixed the core reload issue. I reloaded one
of the c
If you have multi-word synonyms you could use -
tokenizerFactory="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory" - in the
SynonymFilterFactory filter factory declaration. This assumes that
your tokenizer for that field allows for keeping the phrases as a
single token (achieved by using solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory
If you have multi-word synonyms you could use -
tokenizerFactory="solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory" - in the
SynonymFilterFactory filter factory declaration. This assumes that
your tokenizer for that field allows for keeping the phrases as a
single token (achieved by using solr.KeywordTokenizerFactory
ex folder on master and slave
> before and after the replication?
>
> -Alexander
>
>
> On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 18:34 -0400, Ravi Solr wrote:
>> Sorry guys spoke too soon I guess. The replication still remains very
>> slow even after upgrading to 3.1 and setting the compr
tell me how you solved it.
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Ravi Solr wrote:
> Thank you Mr. Bell and Mr. Kanarsky, as per your advise we have moved
> from 1.4.1 to 3.1 and have made several changes to configuration. The
> configuration changes have worked nicely til
eneration is greater than slave, try to watch for the index on
> both master and slave the same time to see what files are getting
> replicated. You probably may need to adjust your merge factor, as Bill
> mentioned.
>
> -Alexander
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 12:45 -0400,
uments, then committing),
> You will cycle through all 10 segments pretty fast.
>
> It appears that if you do go past the 10 segments without replicating, the
> only recourse is for the replicator to do a full index replication instead
> of a delta index replication...
>
> Does th
Hoss,
Thank you very much for clearly delineating the difference.
Just to be clear - My intent to move to 3.1 was driven by my desire to
improve my replication performance - Deducing from your explanation, I
believe the replication/indexing related changes/bug fixes like the
following will
Hello Mr. Kanarsky,
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation,
probably the best explanation I found regarding replication. Just to
be sure, I wanted to test solr 3.1 to see if it alleviates the
problems...I dont think it helped. The master index version and
generation are gr
Thanks Grijesh for responding. I meant that I will use the Lucene 3.1
jars for indexing also from now on. My current index already has a
million docs indexed with solr 1.4.1 version, I read somewhere that
once server is upgraded to 3.1, it is said that the first commit will
change the indexes to 3.
Hello All,
I am planning to upgrade from Solr 1.4.1 to Solr 3.1. I
saw some deprecation warnings in the log as shown below
[#|2011-05-09T12:37:18.762-0400|WARNING|sun-appserver9.1|org.apache.solr.analysis.BaseTokenStreamFactory|_ThreadID=53;_ThreadName=httpSSLWorkerThread-9001-13
;_Re
heckerFile
2.7G search-data
Thanks,
Ravi Kiran Bhaskar
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Bill Bell wrote:
> I did not see answers... I am not an authority, but will tell you what I
> think
>
> Did you get some answers?
>
>
> On 5/6/11 2:52 PM, "Ravi Solr" wr
Hello,
   Pardon me if this has been already answered somewhere and I
apologize for a lengthy post. I was wondering if anybody could help me
understand Replication internals a bit more. We have a single
master-slave setup (solr 1.4.1) with the configurations as shown
below. Our environment is
98 matches
Mail list logo
