I'm looking for a way to improve the relevancy of my MLT results. For my
index based on movies, the MoreLikeThisHandler is doing a great job of
returning related documents by the fields I specify like 'genre', but within
my "bands" of results (groups of documents with the same score cause they
all
*bump*
I'm also curious is something like this is possible. Being able to nest
property substitution variables, especially when using multiple cores, would
be a really slick feature.
Zach Friedland wrote
>
> Has anyone found a way to have multiple properties (override & default)?
> What
> I'd
iorixxx wrote
>
>> Thing is, having a custom Similarity and setting tf=1.0f
>> will turn off term
>> frequencies globally, which is not what I need; I'd like to
>> do it per field.
>
> I think, it is possible to use different similarities for different
> fields. https://issues.apache.org/jira/br
I know I'm kind of reopening a closed thread, but I now have the same
requirement to omitTermFreq only, but still have the ability to run phrase
queries on a field.
Thing is, having a custom Similarity and setting tf=1.0f will turn off term
frequencies globally, which is not what I need; I'd like
Is it possible for ord/rord to work with a function? I'm attempting to use
rord with a spatial function like the following as a bf:
bf=rord(geodist())
If there's no way for this to work, is there a way to simulate the same
behavior?
For some background, I have two sets of documents: one set appl
I'm observing strange results with both the correct and incorrect behavior
happening depending on which field I put in the 'pf' param. I wouldn't think
this should be analyzer specific, but is it?
If I try:
http://localhost:8080/solr/collection1/select?qt=%2Fsearch&q=mickey%20mouse&debugQuery=on&d
If I switch back and forth between defType=dismax and defType=edismax, the
edismax doesn't seem to obey my pf parameter. I dug through the code a
little bit and in the ExtendedDismaxQParserPlugin (Solr 3.4/Solr3.5), the
part that is supposed to add the phrase comes here:
Query phrase = pp.parse(us
Created an issue in jira for this features:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2884
Martijn v Groningen-2 wrote:
>
> Ok I think I get this. I think this can be achieved if one could
> specify a filter inside a group and only documents that pass the
> filter get grouped. For example only
Martijn v Groningen-2 wrote:
>
> When using the group.field option values must be the same otherwise
> they don't get grouped together. Maybe fuzzy grouping would be nice.
> Grouping videos and images based on mimetype should be easy, right?
> Videos have a mimetype that start with video/ and ima
I'm using the http://wiki.apache.org/solr/MoreLikeThisHandler
MoreLikeThisHandler to find similar documents. It doesn't immediately
appear that there is any way to tweak the relevance for the similar results.
By default, it sorts those by how *similar* they are to the original
document. However,
Not necessarily collapse.type=adjacent. That is only when two docs with the
same field value appear next to each other. I'm more concerned with the case
where we only want a group of a certain type (no matter where the subsequent
docs may be), leaving the rest of the documents ungrouped.
The curre
I'd like to suggest the ability to collapse results in a more similar way to
the old SOLR-236 patch that the current grouping functionality doesn't
provide. I need the ability to collapse only certain results based on the
value of a field, leaving all other results in tact.
As an example, consider
Hi All,
Has anyone tackled the challenge of question detection in search using solr?
A lot of my users don't do simple keyword searches, but rather ask questions
as their queries. For example:
what are the business hours?
who is the ceo?
what's the weather?
more information about joe
Are there a
I guess that's a possible solution, but the two concerns I would have are 1)
putting the burden of sorting on the client instead of solr, where it
belongs. And 2) needing to request more results than I'd want to display in
order to guarantee I could populate the entire page of results to compensate
I'm messing around with the field collapsing in 4.x
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldCollapsing . Is it currently possible to
group by a field with a certain value only and leave all the others
ungrouped using the group.query param? This currently doesn't seem to work
the way I want it to.
For exa
I'm using Solr trunk.
If it's levenstein/edit distance, that's great, that's what I want. It just
didn't seem to be officially documented anywhere so I wanted to find out for
sure. Thanks for confirming.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Fuzzy-Query-Param-tp312
In solr, is it possible to 'chain' copyfields so that you can copy the value
of one into another?
Example:
Point being, every time I add a new field to the autocomplete, I want it to
automatically also be added to ac_spellcheck without having to do it twice.
--
View this message in c
According to the docs on lucene query syntax:
"Starting with Lucene 1.9 an additional (optional) parameter can specify the
required similarity. The value is between 0 and 1, with a value closer to 1
only terms with a higher similarity will be matched."
I was messing around with this and started d
Thanks guys. Both the PositionFilterFactory and the
autoGeneratePhraseQueries=false solutions solved the issue.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Analyzer-creates-PhraseQuery-tp3116288p3118471.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I have an analyzer setup in my schema like so:
What's happening is if I index a term like "toys and dolls", if I search for
"to", I get no matches. The debug output in solr gives me:
to
to
PhraseQuery(autocomplete:"t o to")
autocomplete:"t o to"
Which means it looks like th
I'm looking at the wiki article about updating the index with json and the
format doesn't seem well formed to me.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateJSON
Technically, yes, it's valid json, but most libraries treat the json objects
as maps, and with multiple "add" elements as the keys, you cannot pr
Make sense. However, one of the reasons I was asking was that we've
configured Solr to use RAMDirectory and it appears that it loads the index
into memory twice. I suspect the first time is for warming firstSearcher and
the second time is for warming newSearcher. It makes our jvm memory
requiremen
This may seem like a stupid question, but why on the info / stats pages do we
see two instances on SolrIndexSearcher?
The reason I ask is that we've implemented SOLR-465 to try and serve our
index from a RAMDirectory, but it appears that our index is being loaded
into memory twice, as our JVM hea
Apologies if this was resolved, but we just deployed Solr 1.4.1 and the stats
page takes over a minute to load for us as well and began causing
OutOfMemory errors so we've had to refrain from hitting the page. From what
I gather, it is the fieldCache part that's causing it.
Was there ever an offi
Interesting...I guess I had logically assumed that having type="index" meant
it wasn't used for query time, but I see why that's not possible. Here's
the thing though: We had one field defined using this fieldtype and we
deployed the new schema to solr when we started seeing the issue. However,
t; Have you tried setting breakpoints at method entry points in your
> plugin and starting up Solr w/ a debugger attached.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Oct 28, 2009, at 4:54 PM, entdeveloper wrote:
>
>>
>> This is an issue we experienced a while back. We once again tried
This is an issue we experienced a while back. We once again tried to load a
custom class as a plugin jar from the lib directory and began experiencing
severe memory problems again. The code in our jar wasn't being used at
all...the class was only referenced in the schema. I find it strange that
It's my understanding that Solr 1.4, which is to be released any day now,
will be based on version 2.9 of lucene. It's also my understanding that
lucene 3.0 will be released very shortly as well. Is there a plan to update
Solr to use lucene 3.0 shortly after that?
Just trying to decide if we sh
28 matches
Mail list logo
