enning Ueland
s
the search queries are few enough that they are always within Solr`s
own query cache.
--
Regards
Tor Henning Ueland
se
> http caching On.
Don`t bother with it at Varnish/Squid level, just time how long it
takes to perform a query() in your application.
--
Mvh
Tor Henning Ueland
> Server: i7, 12Gb
Start by optimizing it, it wont "stop working" due to a optimize. Some
other vital info is the size of the index, disk type used etc (SSD,
SATA, IDE..)
--
Mvh
Tor Henning Ueland
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Dhanushka Samarakoon wrote:
> That worked. Thanks :-)
Great! :)
--
Regards
Tor Henning Ueland
e just as
the q-field, so you should be able to do a :
fq=keyword:(foo OR bar OR lasagna)
--
Mvh
Tor Henning Ueland
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Order-of-words-in-proximity-search-tp2938427p2946764.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Mvh
Tor Henning Ueland
from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Mvh
Tor Henning Ueland
.com/Order-of-words-in-proximity-search-tp2938427p2944050.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Mvh
Tor Henning Ueland
Hello,
Thanks for the replay.
Just as i suspected. So the solution then is to create a OR search
with both possibilities in order to make the order not be important"
"foo bar"~100 -> ("foo bar~100 OR "bar foo"~100)
--
Best regards
Tor Henning Ueland
On Su
ot use
operators, the query will become: fq=field:foo OR bar.
--
Best regards
Tor Henning Ueland
H3x.no
:
"foo bar"~99 - 10 hits
"bar foo"~99 - 11 hits
--
Best regards
Tor Henning Ueland
Hi!
Thanks for the reply.
We decided to give another try with ngrams. After much tweaking/tuning for
our needs. Both the size and speed was more than good enough for our needs.
So it looks like ngrams was the solution for us afterall :)
Best regards
Tor Henning Ueland
--
View this message in
>Which version of solr are you using ?
Currently testing with 3.1
> NGrams could be an option but could you give us the field definition in
> your schema ? The words count in this field index ?
I wont share the complete schema but i can summarize it:
For testing, we have around 30 fields used t
Hi!
I have been doing some testing with solr and wildcards. Queries like:
- *foo
- foo*
Does complete quickly(1-2s) in a test index on about 40-50GB.
But when i try to do a search for *foo*, the search time can without any
trouble come upwards for 30seconds plus.
Any ideas on how that issue c
ataImporter.java:370)
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/jdbc4-CommunicationsException-tp909274p909274.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Mvh
Tor Henning Ueland
; Geert-Jan
>
>
> <http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DataImportHandler>
>
> 2010/6/8 Tor Henning Ueland
>
>> I have tried both to change the datasource per child node to use the
>> parent nodes name, and tried to making the Xpath`s relative, all
>> cau
/TEKST/KAP is absolute ( the prefixed '/' tells it to be). Try
> 'KAP' instead.
> The same for all xpaths deeper in the tree.
>
> Geert-Jan
>
> 2010/6/7 Tor Henning Ueland
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am doing some testing of dataimport to Solr from XML-docum
speed up the process? I have been looking
around for some examples, but nobody gives examples of such deep data
indexing.
PS: I know there are some bugs in the Xpath naming etc, but it is just
a rough example :)
--
Best regars
Tor Henning Ueland
19 matches
Mail list logo