Re: Trailing wild card searches very slow in Solr

for all we know this could simply be an autowarming issue. > > Are you indexing at the same time? Do you have a short autocommit interval? > > What version of Solr? > > Details matter. > Best, > Erick > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Sundeep T wrote: > > Hi

Re: Trailing wild card searches very slow in Solr

eems to be not the case Thanks Sundeep On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: > You already asked that question and got several answers, did you not > see them? If you did see them, what is unclear? > > Best, > Erick > > On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Sunde

Trailing wild card searches very slow in Solr

Hi, We have several indexed string fields which is not tokenized and does not have docValues enabled. When we do trailing wildcard searches on these fields they are running very slow. We were thinking that since this field is indexed, such queries should be running pretty quickly. We are using So

Leading wildcard searches very slow

Hi, We have several indexed string fields which is not tokenized and does not have docValues enabled. When we do leading wildcard searches on these fields they are running very slow. We were thinking that since this field is indexed, such queries should be running pretty quickly. We are using So

Re: Solr deep paging queries run very slow due to redundant q param

Pinging again. Anyone has ideas on this? Thanks On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Sundeep T wrote: > Hello, > > In our scale environment, we see that the deep paging queries using > cursormark are running really slow. When we traced out the calls, we see > that the second quer

Solr deep paging queries run very slow due to redundant q param

Hello, In our scale environment, we see that the deep paging queries using cursormark are running really slow. When we traced out the calls, we see that the second query which queries the individual id's of matched pages is sending the q param that is already sent by the first query again. If we

Re: Possible memory leak with VersionBucket objects

Sorry, I meant we are "not" running Solr in cloud mode On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Sundeep T wrote: > Yes, but that issue seems specific to SolrCloud like I mentioned. We are > running Solr in cloud mode and don't have Zookeeper configured > > Thanks > Sunde

Re: Possible memory leak with VersionBucket objects

/browse/SOLR-9803> / > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10506>, which was fixed in > Solr 7.0. > > -- > Steve > www.lucidworks.com > > > On Sep 25, 2017, at 2:42 PM, Sundeep T wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > We are running our solr 6

Possible memory leak with VersionBucket objects

Hello, We are running our solr 6.4.2 instance on a single node without zookeeper. So, we are not using solr cloud. We have been ingesting about 50k messages per second into this instance spread over 4 cores. When we looked at the heapdump we see that it has there are around 385 million instances

Error opening new searcher due to LockObtainFailedException

Hello, Occasionally we are seeing errors opening new searcher for certain solr cores. Whenever this happens, we are unable to query or ingest new data into these cores. It seems to clear up after some time though. The root cause seems to be - *"org.apache.lucene.store.LockObtainFailedException: Lo

What is the org.apache.solr.uninverting.FieldCacheImpl?

Hi, In our enterprise application, we occasionally get range facet queries ordered by the timestamp field. The timestamp field is of date type. Below is the query from solr.log - 2017-08-25 05:18:51.048 INFO (qtp1321530272-90) [ x:drums] o.a.s.c.S.Request [drums] webapp=/solr path=/select pa

Is there a way to specify word position in solr search query on text fields?

Hello, We have a text field in our schema that is indexed using the StandardTokenizerFactory. We have set omitPositions= false, so that positional information of individual tokens is also included in the index data. Question is if there is a way to construct a query in which we can specify the po

How to do sorting in lucene layer instead of Solr?

Hi, I am using /export API, and in Solr 6.3, the sorting in done by Solr in SortingResponserWriter class after the lucene query execution is done. I want to know if it is possible to do the sorting in lucene layer itself and get the results, so that its more efficient if we only want top 10 rows

Parallelizing post filter for better performance

Hello, Is there a way to execute the post filter in a parallel mode so that multiple query results can be filtered in parallel? Right now, in our code, the post filter is becoming kind of bottleneck as we had to do some post processing on every returned result, and it runs serially in a single th

Re: q=-id:xxxx in export handler does not work but works ok in select.

Hi Erick, It looks like solr by default takes care of adding the *:* for /select API for NOT queries like this. In the newer /export API, it is not doing that by default. So, it is kind of inconsistent, and a lot of users will run into this if they try to use the /export api for streaming results

Re: Problems executing boolean queries involving NOT clauses

; work. > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Sundeep T wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am using solr 6.3 version. > > > > We are seeing issues involving NOT clauses when they are paired in > boolean expressions. The issues specifically occur when the “NOT” clause is

Problems executing boolean queries involving NOT clauses

Hi, I am using solr 6.3 version. We are seeing issues involving NOT clauses when they are paired in boolean expressions. The issues specifically occur when the “NOT” clause is surrounded by paratheses. For example, the following solr query does not return any results - (timestamp:[* TO "2017-