Sv: [SPAM] Process copyField only when field is absent in update

, so there might be a more modern way to configure this. But the essence of this solution should still work fine. /Jimi ufuk yılmaz wrote: > > When I have a copyfield directive like, > > > And I send a document containing field named “b”, Solr tries to write 2 > values i

Process copyField only when field is absent in update

When I have a copyfield directive like,

Re: copyField from empty multivalue

Nevermind I think we found this was caused by a bug in our (new) custom indexer On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:11 PM matthew sporleder wrote: > > I have a copyField: > > > > But sometimes preview ( indexed="true" stored="true" multiValued="true&quo

copyField from empty multivalue

I have a copyField: But sometimes preview () is not populated. It appears that the "catchall" field does not get created when preview has no content in it. Can I use required=false or similar on a copyField? Thanks, Matt

Use copyField with wildcard in source; how then to work out where a value came from?

lighting on one or more specific languages, and _also_ to be able to do a language-independent search, or, if you like, to search for values in all languages in one go. I want to display details of matches and highlighting _with their language information_. The problem: suppose I get a match and

Re: copyField - why source should contain * when dest contains *?

Hey Community, I think I have got the answer to my query. This statement about *copyFields <https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_0/copying-fields.html>*: *The copyField command can use a wildcard (*) character in the dest > parameter only if the source parameter contains on

Re: copyField - why source should contain * when dest contains *?

> : Yes, that's what hit me initially. But, "*_x" while indexing (in XMLs) > : doesn't mean anything, right? It's only used in dynamicFields while > : defining schema to let Solr know that we would have some undeclared > fields > > use of wildcards i

Re: copyField - why source should contain * when dest contains *?

hree? : Yes, that's what hit me initially. But, "*_x" while indexing (in XMLs) : doesn't mean anything, right? It's only used in dynamicFields while : defining schema to let Solr know that we would have some undeclared fields use of wildcards in copyField is not conts

Re: copyField - why source should contain * when dest contains *?

h. Anyways, thanks for replying, Erick. :) On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 17:41, Erick Erickson wrote: > So how would that work? Copyfields are intended to copy exactly one field > in the input into exactly one field in the destination, not multiple ones > at the same time. If you need to do t

Re: copyField - why source should contain * when dest contains *?

So how would that work? Copyfields are intended to copy exactly one field in the input into exactly one field in the destination, not multiple ones at the same time. If you need to do that, define multiple copyField directives. I don’t even see how that would work. . Remember that Solr is also

copyField - why source should contain * when dest contains *?

ore we upgrade to 8.2. The last quote on the page mentions: *The copyField command can use a wildcard (*) character in the dest > parameter only if the source parameter contains one as well. copyField uses > the matching glob from the source field for the dest field name into which > the

Re: Importing a csv file encapsulated by " creates a large copyField field of all fields combined.

Thank you, that worked perfectly. I can't believe I didn't notice the separator was a tab.

Re: Importing a csv file encapsulated by " creates a large copyField field of all fields combined.

On 10/21/2019 11:24 AM, rhys J wrote: I am using this command: curl ' http://localhost:8983/solr/users/update/csv?commit=true&separator=%09&encapsulator=%20&escape=\&stream.file=/tmp/users.csv ' The sequence %20 is a URL encoding of a space. If you intend the encapsulator character to be a do

Re: Importing a csv file encapsulated by " creates a large copyField field of all fields combined.

I am using this command: curl ' http://localhost:8983/solr/users/update/csv?commit=true&separator=%09&encapsulator=%20&escape=\&stream.file=/tmp/users.csv ' On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:22 PM Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > What command do you use to get the file into Solr? My guess that you > are

Re: Importing a csv file encapsulated by " creates a large copyField field of all fields combined.

What command do you use to get the file into Solr? My guess that you are somehow not hitting the correct handler. Perhaps you are sending it to extract handler (designed for PDF, MSWord, etc) rather than the correct CSV handler. Solr comes with the examples of how to index CSV command. See for exa

Importing a csv file encapsulated by " creates a large copyField field of all fields combined.

I am trying to import a csv file to my solr core. It looks like this: "user_id","name","email","client","classification","default_client","disabled","dm_password","manager" "A2M","Art Morse","amo...@morsemoving.com","Morse Moving","Morse","","X","blue0show","" "ABW","Amy Wiedner","amy.wied...@pyr

Re: maxChars no longer working on CopyField as of 7.7

Thanks Erik. I created SOLR-13699. I agree wrt adding a Unit Test, that was my thinking as well. I am currently working on a test, and then I will submit my patch. Thanks, Chris On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:06 PM Erick Erickson wrote: > Chris: > > I certainly don’t see anything in JIRA about this

Re: maxChars no longer working on CopyField as of 7.7

Chris: I certainly don’t see anything in JIRA about this, so please do raise a JIRA, especially as you already have a patch! It’d be great if you added a test case demonstrating this that fails without your patch and succeeds after. I’d just add a method to one of the existing tests, maybe in so

maxChars no longer working on CopyField as of 7.7

Hi all, We recently upgraded from Solr 7.3 to 8.1, and noticed that the maxChars property on a copy field is no longer functioning as designed. Per the most recent documentation it looks like there have been no intentional changes as to the functionality of this property, so I assume this is a bug

RE: Schema.xml, copyField, Slash, ignoreCase ?

Hi Erick, Thanks for the tip Admin>>UI>>(core)>>analysis, I will investigate this afternoon. Regards, Bruno -Message d'origine- De : Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] Envoyé : vendredi 11 janvier 2019 17:18 À : solr-user Objet : Re: Schem

RE: Schema.xml, copyField, Slash, ignoreCase ?

apache.org Objet : Re: Schema.xml, copyField, Slash, ignoreCase ? Hi Bruno, ignoreCase: Looks like you already have achieved this? auto truncation: This is caused by inclusion of PorterStemFilterFactory in your "text_en" field type. If you don't want its effects (i.e. treating dif

Re: copyfield not working

thanks for the info Andrea! Thanks Jay On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 11:53 PM Andrea Gazzarini wrote: > Hi Jay, the text analysis always operates on the indexed content. The > stored content of a filed is left untouched unless you do something > before it gets indexed (e.g. on client side or by an

Re: copyfield not working

copyfield syntax from my schema file... Thanks Jay On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 11:46 PM Jay Potharaju wrote: > Hi, > I have a copy field in which i am copying the contents of text_en field to > another custom field. > After indexing i was expecting any of the special chara

Re: copyfield not working

Hi Jay, the text analysis always operates on the indexed content. The stored content of a filed is left untouched unless you do something before it gets indexed (e.g. on client side or by an UpdateRequestProcessor). Cheers, Andrea On 14/01/2019 08:46, Jay Potharaju wrote: Hi, I have a copy f

copyfield not working

Hi, I have a copy field in which i am copying the contents of text_en field to another custom field. After indexing i was expecting any of the special characters in the paragraph to be removed, but it does not look like that is happening. The copied content is same as the what is there in the sourc

Re: Schema.xml, copyField, Slash, ignoreCase ?

Hi Bruno, ignoreCase: Looks like you already have achieved this? auto truncation: This is caused by inclusion of PorterStemFilterFactory in your "text_en" field type. If you don't want its effects (i.e. treating different forms of the same word interchangeably), remove the filter. process sla

Re: Schema.xml, copyField, Slash, ignoreCase ?

The admin UI>>(select a core)>>analysis page is your friend here. It'll show you exactly what each filter in your analysis chain does and from there you'll need to mix and match filters, your tokenizer and the like to support the use-cases you need. My guess is that the field type you're using con

Schema.xml, copyField, Slash, ignoreCase ?

Hello, I’m facing a problem concerning the default field “text” (SOLR 5.4) and queries which contains / (slash) I need to have default “text” field with: - ignoreCase, - no auto truncation, - process slash char I would like to perform only query on the field “text” Queries can contain:

Re: Ignored fields and copyfield

t be > used > > for another field as part of copyfield directive which might index/store > it. > > Yes. > > The copyField directive is processed before the indexing process gets > the document. The original input is copied to the destination field, > regardless of

Re: Ignored fields and copyfield

On 8/6/2018 2:47 PM, John Davis wrote: > If a field is set as "ignored" (indexed=false, stored=false) can it be used > for another field as part of copyfield directive which might index/store it. Yes. The copyField directive is processed before the indexing process gets th

Re: Ignored fields and copyfield

port Training - http://sematext.com/ > On 6 Aug 2018, at 22:47, John Davis wrote: > > Hi there, > If a field is set as "ignored" (indexed=false, stored=false) can it be used > for another field as part of copyfield directive which might index/store it. > > John

Re: Ignored fields and copyfield

Hi John, Yes, it's possible. Andrea On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, 22:47 John Davis, wrote: > Hi there, > If a field is set as "ignored" (indexed=false, stored=false) can it be used > for another field as part of copyfield directive which might index/store > it. > > John >

Ignored fields and copyfield

Hi there, If a field is set as "ignored" (indexed=false, stored=false) can it be used for another field as part of copyfield directive which might index/store it. John

Re: How can I prevent adding duplicated copyfield into managed schema

What if you include the core name as part of the direct path? In my practice, managed-schema file is stored under ~/solr/coreName, so it is core specific and will never be shared with other cores. Wendy -- Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html

How can I prevent adding duplicated copyfield into managed schema

Hi Solr experts: Question: how can I prevent multiple concurrent requests adding the same duplicated copyfield into managed schema? (Note: I am using Solr 6.6.2) User case: For a new field named srcField, I need to create another field named destField, and a new copyField with srcField as

Re: copyField match, but how?

You're on the money, Chris. Thank you s much, I didn't even realize "body" wasn't stored. Of course that is the reason!! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/copyField-match-but-how-tp4323327p4323335.html Sent from the Solr - Use

Re: copyField match, but how?

: In my schema.xml, I have these copyFields: you haven't shown us the field/fieldType definitions for any of those fields, so it's possible "simplex" was included in a field that is indexed=true but not stored-false -- which is why you might be able to search on it, but not see it in the field

Re: copyField match, but how?

er" wrote: I've got a confusing situation related to copyFields and search. In my schema.xml, I have these copyFields: and a defaultSearchField to the 'alltext' copyField: alltext In my index, this document with all these mapped fields - nothing to note excep

copyField match, but how?

I've got a confusing situation related to copyFields and search. In my schema.xml, I have these copyFields: and a defaultSearchField to the 'alltext' copyField: alltext In my index, this document with all these mapped fields - nothing to note except that the word &quo

Removing duplicate values from fields filled with copyField...

Hi all, It seems that this is a popular request (remove duplicates generated from copyField), but I am not sure that I have understood the answer. Can somebody point to a correct answer for this issue? I have understand that this involves "update request processors", but I am

Removing duplicate values from fields filled with copyField...

Hi all, It seems that this is a popular request (remove duplicates generated from copyField), but I am not sure that I have understood the answer. Can somebody point to a correct answer for this issue? I have understand that this involves "update request processors", but I am

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

Many thanks for the assistance Hoss! After a couple of bumps, it worked great. I followed the recommendations (and read the explanation - thanks!) Although I swear it threw the error once again, just to be sure I rebooted everything (Zookeeper included) then reloaded the configs into Zooke

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

Just as a note, TYPO3 uses a lot of include files though I do not remember which specific mechanism they rely on. Regards, Alex On 5 Aug 2016 10:51 AM, "John Bickerstaff" wrote: > Many thanks for your time! Yes, it does make sense. > > I'll give your recommendation a shot tomorrow and upda

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

Many thanks for your time! Yes, it does make sense. I'll give your recommendation a shot tomorrow and update the thread. On Aug 4, 2016 6:22 PM, "Chris Hostetter" wrote: TL;DR: use entity includes *WITH OUT TOP LEVEL WRAPPER ELEMENTS* like in this example... https://github.com/apache/lucene-

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

TL;DR: use entity includes *WITH OUT TOP LEVEL WRAPPER ELEMENTS* like in this example... https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/solr/core/src/test-files/solr/collection1/conf/schema-snippet-types.incl https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/solr/core/src/test-files/solr/coll

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

entioned that the problem only happens when you use xinclude, but > you > : > havne't shown us hte details of your xinclude -- what exactly does your > : > schema.xml look like (with the xinclude call) and what exactly does the > : > file being included look like (entire

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

. using xml entity includes may be a simpler/safer option) : > : > : > : > : Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:47:00 -0600 : > : From: John Bickerstaff : > : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : > : To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : > : Subject: Re: Problems using fieldType text_

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

gt; >>> >>> you mentioned that the problem only happens when you use xinclude, but >>> you >>> havne't shown us hte details of your xinclude -- what exactly does your >>> schema.xml look like (with the xinclude call) and what exactly does the >&g

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

ut you >> havne't shown us hte details of your xinclude -- what exactly does your >> schema.xml look like (with the xinclude call) and what exactly does the >> file being included look like (entire contents) >> >> (I suspect the problem you are seeing is realted to th

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

> > : Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:47:00 -0600 > : From: John Bickerstaff > : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > : To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > : Subject: Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField > : > : I would call this a bug... > : > : I'm going out o

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

g xml entity includes may be a simpler/safer option) : Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:47:00 -0600 : From: John Bickerstaff : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : Subject: Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField : : I would call this a bug... : : I&

Re: Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

I would call this a bug... I'm going out on a limb and say that if you define a field in the included XML file, you will get this error. As long as the field is defined first in schema.xml, you can "copyFIeld" it or whatever in the include file, but apparently fields MUST be

Problems using fieldType text_general in copyField

ever, when I put this into an include file and use xinclude, then I get this error when starting Solr. - *statdx_shard1_replica3:* org.apache.solr.common.SolrException:org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Could not load conf for core statdx_shard1_replica3: Can't load schema schema

Re: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates

Regards > Karthik Ramachandran > CommVault > Direct: (732) 923-2197 >  Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to > > -Original Message- > From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 8:24 PM > To: solr

RE: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates

Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 8:24 PM To: solr-user Subject: Re: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates I think I just added the right person, let us know if you don't have access and/or if you need access to the LUCENE JIRA. Erick On Fri

Re: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates

;>> >>> We made changes to send the filteredList to >>>searcher.decorateDocValueFields >>> and it started working. >>> >>> >>> >>> Attached is the modified file. >>> >>> >>> >>> With Thanks &

Re: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates

e-mail unless you really need to >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Karthik Ramachandran [mailto:mrk...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:08 AM >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not w

Re: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates

th Thanks & Regards > Karthik Ramachandran > CommVault > P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to > > > > -Original Message- > From: Karthik Ramachandran [mailto:mrk...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:08 AM > To: solr-us

RE: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates

solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates We are trying to update Field A. -Karthik On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:36 PM, John Bickerstaff wrote: > Which field do you try to atomically update? A or B or some other? > On Ap

Re: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates

We are trying to update Field A. -Karthik On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:36 PM, John Bickerstaff wrote: > Which field do you try to atomically update? A or B or some other? > On Apr 21, 2016 8:29 PM, "Tirthankar Chatterjee" < > tchatter...@commvault.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > Here is the scenari

Re: Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates

Which field do you try to atomically update? A or B or some other? On Apr 21, 2016 8:29 PM, "Tirthankar Chatterjee" wrote: > Hi, > Here is the scenario for SOLR5.5: > > FieldA type= stored=true indexed=true > > FieldB type= stored=false indexed=true docValue=true > usedocvalueasstored=false > >

Solr5.5:DocValues/CopyField does not work with Atomic updates

Hi, Here is the scenario for SOLR5.5: FieldA type= stored=true indexed=true FieldB type= stored=false indexed=true docValue=true usedocvalueasstored=false FieldA copyTo FieldB Try an Atomic update and we are getting this error: possible analysis error: DocValuesField "mtmround" appears more t

Re: copyField

: 1) Give my need, am I losing anything by writing my own copy-field in my : Java code vs. using Solr's copyField in the schema? nope. : 2) How do I prevent a case where when I copy data from field A and B where : A has "Fable of the Throbbing" and B has "Genius of a

copyField

Hi, I have 100's of fields to search against based on some pre-defined static rules. So fields A, B, C to be searched as group-X, fields A, B, D, E, F as group-Y, fields B, E, F, G as group-Z. Each group is made up of 100's of fields (at least 500). I can use copyField variations to

Re: Using copyField with dynamicField

Zach, As an alternative to 'copyField', you might want to consider the CloneFieldUpdateProcessorFactory: http://lucene.apache.org/solr/5_0_0/solr-core/org/apache/solr/update/processor/CloneFieldUpdateProcessorFactory.html It supports specification of field names with regular e

Re: Using copyField with dynamicField

What is reported in the Solr log? That's usually much more informative. Best, Erick On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > It should work (at first glance). copyField does support wildcards. > > Do you have a field called "text"? Also, your fie

Re: Using copyField with dynamicField

It should work (at first glance). copyField does support wildcards. Do you have a field called "text"? Also, your field name and field type "text" have the same name. Not sure it is the best idea. Regards, Alex. Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs and eve

Using copyField with dynamicField

Hi All, Is it possible to use copyField with dynamicField?  I was trying to do the following, and getting a 400 error on trying to copy the first dynamic field. Without the copyField the fields seem to load ok. --   Zach Thompson   z...@duckduckgo.com

RE: Do I really need copyField when my app can do the copy?

-Original Message- From: Shawn Heisey [mailto:apa...@elyograg.org] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 9:55 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Do I really need copyField when my app can do the copy? On 7/9/2015 2:35 AM, Nir Barel wrote: > I wants to add a question regard

Re: Do I really need copyField when my app can do the copy?

On 7/9/2015 2:35 AM, Nir Barel wrote: > I wants to add a question regarding copyField and LowerCaseFilterFactory > We notice that LowerCaseFilterFactory takes huge part of the CPU ( via > profiling ) for the text filed > Can we avoid it or improve that implementation? ( keeping the

Re: Do I really need copyField when my app can do the copy?

Let me answer in line : 2015-07-09 9:35 GMT+01:00 Nir Barel : > Hi, > > I wants to add a question regarding copyField and LowerCaseFilterFactory > We notice that LowerCaseFilterFactory takes huge part of the CPU ( via > profiling ) for the text filed > Can we avoid

RE: Do I really need copyField when my app can do the copy?

Hi, I wants to add a question regarding copyField and LowerCaseFilterFactory We notice that LowerCaseFilterFactory takes huge part of the CPU ( via profiling ) for the text filed Can we avoid it or improve that implementation? ( keeping the insensitive case search ) Best Regards, Nir Barel

RE: Do I really need copyField when my app can do the copy?

Perhaps some people like maybe those using DIH to feed their index might not have that luxury and copyfield is the better way for them. If you have an application you can do it either way. I have done both ways in different situations. Robi -Original Message- From: Steven White

Re: Do I really need copyField when my app can do the copy?

On 7/8/2015 4:38 PM, Steven White wrote: > What good is the use of copyField in Solr's schema.xml if my application > can do it into the designated field? Having my application do so helps me > simplify the schema.xml maintains task thus my motivation. I can think of two main uses

Do I really need copyField when my app can do the copy?

Hi Everyone, What good is the use of copyField in Solr's schema.xml if my application can do it into the designated field? Having my application do so helps me simplify the schema.xml maintains task thus my motivation. Thanks Steve

Re: copyField based on value of another field

You should work at the UpdateProcessor level : https://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateRequestProcessor#Implementing_a_conditional_copyField This should give you some hint. Cheers 2015-06-23 13:45 GMT+01:00 Alistair Young : > Hi folks, > > is it possible to copyField only if another fi

copyField based on value of another field

Hi folks, is it possible to copyField only if another field has a certain value? e.g. copyField 'dc.subject' to 'image_suggestions' only if rdf http://www.nsdl.org/ontologies/relationships#isInImageBank is true thanks, Alistair -- mov eax,1 mov ebx,0 int 80h

AW: schema.xml & xi:include -> copyField source :'_my_title' is not a glob and doesn't match any explicit field or dynamicField

Perfect! Thanks a lot Clemens -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Steve Rowe [mailto:sar...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Mai 2015 23:13 An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Betreff: Re: schema.xml & xi:include -> copyField source :'_my_title' is not a glob and doesn

Re: Is copyField a must?

From: Steven White [mailto:swhite4...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 3:12 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Is copyField a must? > > Anyone knows the answer to Shawn's question? Does Solr support POST > request and is the format the same as GET?

Re: schema.xml & xi:include -> copyField source :'_my_title' is not a glob and doesn't match any explicit field or dynamicField

... 27 more > Caused by: org.xml.sax.SAXParseException; systemId: solrres:/schema.xml; > lineNumber: 3; columnNumber: 84; Error attempting to parse XML file > (href='schema-common.xml'). > at org.apache.solr.core.Config.(Config.java:145) > ... 29 more > > -Ursprüng

AW: schema.xml & xi:include -> copyField source :'_my_title' is not a glob and doesn't match any explicit field or dynamicField

olr-user@lucene.apache.org Betreff: Re: schema.xml & xi:include -> copyField source :'_my_title' is not a glob and doesn't match any explicit field or dynamicField Hi Clemens, I think the problem is the structure of the composite schema - you’ll end up with: <- your other

Re: schema.xml & xi:include -> copyField source :'_my_title' is not a glob and doesn't match any explicit field or dynamicField

gt; > stored="true" type="string"/> > type="string"/> > > > > positionIncrementGap="0" precisionStep="0"/> > > > > When I try to include the very schema from another schema file, e.g.: >

schema.xml & xi:include -> copyField source :'_my_title' is not a glob and doesn't match any explicit field or dynamicField

Given the following schema.xml _my_id When I try to include the very schema from another schema file, e.g.: http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"/> I get SolrException copyField source :'_my_title' is not a glob and doesn&#x

RE: Is copyField a must?

m: Steven White [mailto:swhite4...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 3:12 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Is copyField a must? Anyone knows the answer to Shawn's question? Does Solr support POST request and is the format the same as GET? If it does than it means I don'

Re: Is copyField a must?

Anyone knows the answer to Shawn's question? Does Solr support POST request and is the format the same as GET? If it does than it means I don't have to create multiple request handlers. Thanks Steve On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 5/13/2015 3:36 PM, Steven White wro

Re: Is copyField a must?

Hi Erick, The "fq" did the trick. This basically solved my need, and I can call it a day (now that it is late Friday) The reason why I'm using two (and there will be move) handlers vs "qf" in the URL, is due to the GET limit. The list of fields will be large (nearing 1000) and each field name c

Re: Is copyField a must?

Two things: 1> There's really no need to define two request handlers here. The section is exactly that, defaults which can be overridden by the URL. So rather than have select_group_b, use something like ... solr/collection/select_group_a?q=whatever&qf=F2,F3,F5 2> When you add a field qualifie

Re: Is copyField a must?

Looks like I got it working (however I still have an outstanding issue, see end of my email). Here is what I have done: 1) In my solrconfig.xml, I created: explicit 20 edismax F1 F2 F3 type,id,score xml true And

Re: Is copyField a must?

Thanks for the quick reply Shawn. I will dig into dismax and edismax and come back with questions if I cannot figure it out. I avoided them thinking they are for faceting use only, my need is generic search (all the features I get via solr.SearchHandler) but limited to a set of fields. Steve On

Re: Is copyField a must?

On 5/13/2015 3:36 PM, Steven White wrote: > Note, I want to avoid a URL base solution (sending the list of fields over > HTTP) because the list of fields could be large (1000+) and thus I will > exceed GET limit quickly (does Solr support POST for searching, if so, than > I can use URL base solutio

Re: Is copyField a must?

On 5/13/2015 3:36 PM, Steven White wrote: > > >explicit >20 >F2,F3,F5 >id,score > > > > However, this isn't working because whatever is in "df" is being treated as > single field name. The df parameter is shorthand for "default field." It is, by defin

Re: Is copyField a must?

ed GET limit quickly (does Solr support POST for searching, if so, than I can use URL base solution?) Thanks in advance. Steve On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote: > No, there is no requirement for having a copyField of any kind. > > > — > Erik Hatcher

Re: Is copyField a must?

No, there is no requirement for having a copyField of any kind. — Erik Hatcher, Senior Solutions Architect http://www.lucidworks.com <http://www.lucidworks.com/> > On May 13, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Steven White wrote: > > I don't have a need for Edismax. That said, do I s

Re: Is copyField a must?

I don't have a need for Edismax. That said, do I still have a need for copyField into a default-field? Steve On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Alessandro Benedetti < benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think with a proper configuration of the Edismax query parser and a >

Re: Is copyField a must?

h need, I will always be using df to specify the list of fields > a search will be done in (the list of fields is group based which my > application defines). > > Given this, is there any reason to use copyField to copy the data into a > single master-field to search against? Am I

Is copyField a must?

Hi Everyone, In my search need, I will always be using df to specify the list of fields a search will be done in (the list of fields is group based which my application defines). Given this, is there any reason to use copyField to copy the data into a single master-field to search against? Am I

Re: What's the need for copyField> when you have "fq"

Yet a third is that is often used when you want to treat the same data different ways. For instance, consider a "title" field. You might want to sort by title, but sorting on a tokenized field is undefined so I might use a copyField from "title" to "title_sort" a

RE: What's the need for copyField> when you have "fq"

Steven White [swhite4...@gmail.com] wrote: > If I have 50 fields in a Solr doc and I index them without doing any > to a catch-all-field called "all_text". During search I use > "fq" to list all the 50 fields to search on. Now how different is this > from not using "fq" and searching against my

What's the need for copyField> when you have "fq"

Hi folks, I'm new to Solr and I have a question about , "q" and "fq". If I have 50 fields in a Solr doc and I index them without doing any to a catch-all-field called "all_text". During search I use "fq" to list all the 50 fields to search on. Now how different is this from not using "fq" and

Re: CopyField exclude patterns

Rafalovitch wrote: > Not on copyField, > > You can use UpdateRequestProcessor instead ( > > http://www.solr-start.com/javadoc/solr-lucene/org/apache/solr/update/processor/CloneFieldUpdateProcessorFactory.html > ). > > This allows to specify both inclusion and exclusi

  1   2   3   4   5   >