Re: solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning query results than solr 4.10.4 or solr 6.5.1

gt; > >> 543 NW York Drive, Suite 100, Bend, OR 97703 > >> > >> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/company/manzama> | Twitter > >> <https://twitter.com/ManzamaInc> | Facebook > >> <http://www.facebook.com/manzamainc> | YouTube > >>

Re: solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning query results than solr 4.10.4 or solr 6.5.1

.youtube.com/channel/UCBo3QoqewyNoo7HiT_BFuRw> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:50 AM Russell Bahr wrote: >> >>> Hi Shawn, >>> >>> Just checking to see if you saw my reply and had any feedback. Thank you >>> again for your help

Re: solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning query results than solr 4.10.4 or solr 6.5.1

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:50 AM Russell Bahr wrote: > >> Hi Shawn, >> >> Just checking to see if you saw my reply and had any feedback. Thank you >> again for your help. It is much appreciated. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Russ >> >> >> &g

Re: solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning query results than solr 4.10.4 or solr 6.5.1

. It is much appreciated. > > Thank you, > > Russ > > > > > > *From: *Russell Bahr > *Date: *Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 11:50 AM > *To: *"solr-user@lucene.apache.org" > *Subject: *Re: solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning query results than > so

Re: solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning query results than solr 4.10.4 or solr 6.5.1

returning query results than solr 4.10.4 or solr 6.5.1 Hi Shawn, I included the wrong file for solr4 and did not realize until you pointed out the heap size. The correct file that is setting the Java environment is "Solr 4 tomcat setenv" I have uploaded that to the shared folder along

Re: solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning query results than solr 4.10.4 or solr 6.5.1

Hi Shawn, I included the wrong file for solr4 and did not realize until you pointed out the heap size. The correct file that is setting the Java environment is "Solr 4 tomcat setenv" I have uploaded that to the shared folder along with the requested screenshots "Solr 4 top screenshot","Solr 6 top

Re: solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning query results than solr 4.10.4 or solr 6.5.1

On 10/14/2019 1:36 PM, Russell Bahr wrote: Backend replacement of solr4 and hopefully Frontend replacement as well. solr-spec 8.1.1 lucene-spec 8.1.1 Runtime Oracle Corporation OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM 12 12+33 1 collection 6 shards 5 replicas per shard 17,919,889 current documents (35 days wort

solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning query results than solr 4.10.4 or solr 6.5.1

same queries against solr 8 cloud deployment the results return in more than 16 seconds. Link to dropbox folder containing ( https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2x2k5c9db7d4pt9/AADnHwuJc7a9Fh4KmUD15rS0a?dl=0 ) "one of our normal queries" Solr 6 query results Solr 8 query results Solr 4 solr

Re: Not able to see newly added filed in query results

13 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: Not able to see newly added filed in query results > > In order to see newly added fields you have to reindex. > If there were any mistakes while reindexing they should appear in the log > file. > No clues in the kog? >

RE: Not able to see newly added filed in query results

e.org<mailto:solr-user@lucene.apache.org> Subject: Not able to see newly added filed in query results Hi Experts, I am not able to see the newly added filed(allJobReqIds) in search results. From the Solr Admin UI, I don't see any indexed records count . Address is the one that I am

RE: Not able to see newly added filed in query results

@lucene.apache.org Subject: Not able to see newly added filed in query results Hi Experts, I am not able to see the newly added filed(allJobReqIds) in search results. From the Solr Admin UI, I don't see any indexed records count . Address is the one that I am seeing data and allJobReqIds whi

Re: Filtering group query results

On 10/4/2018 7:10 AM, Greenhorn Techie wrote: We have a requirement where we need to perform a group query in Solr where results are grouped by user-name (which is a field in our indexes) . We then need to filter the results based on numFound response parameter present under each group. In essenc

Filtering group query results

Hi, We have a requirement where we need to perform a group query in Solr where results are grouped by user-name (which is a field in our indexes) . We then need to filter the results based on numFound response parameter present under each group. In essence, we want to return results only where num

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

1) Diego's observation about IDF is absolutely correct here, but I don't think he was pointing it to be a negative aspect of your new approach. I think he just wanted to warn you about this. The way BM25 uses the IDF feature of a term is to estimate how important is the term in the context ( givin

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

pache.org > Subject: Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query > results using non-indexed and dynamic range values > > Hi, > > first of all, thank you for your answers. > > @ Rick: the reason is that the set of pages that are stored into the disk > rep

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

different - since idf will be computed on all the documents that you have in the collection. Cheers, Diego From: solr-user@lucene.apache.org At: 01/31/18 20:12:16To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed a

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Hi, I did not check it in code, but based on earlier comments on ML, it seems that in place updates are not as it sounds - it will rewrite doc values for the segment that is updated. If you really want to avoid index changes, you can maybe use external field: https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guid

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Reading from the wiki [1]: " An atomic update operation is performed using this approach only when the fields to be updated meet these three conditions: are non-indexed (indexed="false"), non-stored (stored="false"), single valued (multiValued="false") numeric docValues (docValues="true") fields

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Hi, first of all, thank you for your answers. @ Rick: the reason is that the set of pages that are stored into the disk represents just a static view of the Web, in order to let my experiments be fully replicable. My need is to run simulations of different crawlers on top of it, each working on t

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Luigi Is there a reason for not indexing all of your on-disk pages? That seems to be the first step. But I do not understand what your goal is. Cheers -- Rick On January 30, 2018 1:33:27 PM EST, Luigi Caiazza wrote: >Hello, > >I am working on a project that simulates a selective, large-scale >cr

Re:Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

-hood.html From: solr-user@lucene.apache.org At: 01/30/18 18:42:01To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values Hello, I am working on a project that simulates a selective, large-scale

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

I am not sure I fully understood your use case, but let me suggest few different possible solutions : 1) Query Time join approach : you keep 2 collections, one static with all the pages, one that just store lighweight documents containing the crawling interaction : 1) Id, content -> Pages 2)pageId

Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Hello, I am working on a project that simulates a selective, large-scale crawling. The system adapts its behaviour according with some external user queries received at crawling time. Briefly, it analyzes the already crawled pages in the top-k results for each query, and prioritizes the visit of t

RE: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results

I have never been a big fan of " getting N results from Solr and then filter them client side" . I get your point about the document modelling, so I will assume you properly tested it and having the small documents at Solr side is really not sustainable. I also appreciate the fact you want to fin

RE: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results

-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results And you want to show to the users only the Lucene documents that matched the original query sent to Solr? (what if a lucene document matches only part of the query?) From: solr-user@lucene.apache.org At: 01/23/18 13:55:46To:

RE: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results

@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results Hi Diego, Basically, each Solr document has a text field , which contains large amount of text separated by some delimiters. I split this text into parts and then assign each part to a separate lucene Document object. The field

RE: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results

post-process Solr query results Rahul, can you provide more details on how you decide that the smaller lucene objects are part of the same solr document? From: solr-user@lucene.apache.org At: 01/23/18 09:59:17To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Using lucene to post-process Solr query

RE: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results

ok at streaming expressions, looks interesting. Regards, Rahul Chhiber -Original Message- From: Atita Arora [mailto:atitaar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 3:29 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results Hi Rahul, Looks

Re: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results

Rahul, can you provide more details on how you decide that the smaller lucene objects are part of the same solr document? From: solr-user@lucene.apache.org At: 01/23/18 09:59:17To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results Hi Rahul, Looks like

Re: Using lucene to post-process Solr query results

Hi Rahul, Looks like Streaming expressions can probably can help you. Is there something else you have tried for this? Atita On Jan 23, 2018 3:24 PM, "Rahul Chhiber" wrote: Hi All, For our business requirement, once our Solr client (Java) gets the results of a search query from the Solr ser

Using lucene to post-process Solr query results

Hi All, For our business requirement, once our Solr client (Java) gets the results of a search query from the Solr server, we need to further search across and also within the content of the returned documents. To accomplish this, I am attempting to create on the client-side an in-memory lucene

Re: Boosting query results

I think it works to join against the other collection to get scores. But I’m not sure. I think that was suggested for a fairly static collection of documents with rapidly changing scoring inputs. Personally, I would try a straight popularity boost to see if it got you 80% of the way there. wun

Re: Boosting query results

Yes, the spam issue is something I'm aware of. I plan on having some sanity checks in place to make sure that the boosts are in line with expectations either at query time or while indexing the scores into Solr. I just read through that document along with some of the more recent posts about s

Re: Boosting query results

If it is running in an environment protected from spammers, you might want to start with the work that LucidWorks did on click scoring. https://lucidworks.com/blog/2015/03/23/mixed-signals-using-lucidworks-fusions-signals-api/

Re: Boosting query results

You understand that you are making your site extremely easy to spam, right? This is how Microsoft became the top hit for “evil empire” on Google. wunder Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Jul 7, 2016, at 11:25 AM, Mark T. Trembley > wrote: >

Re: Boosting query results

I've found that it is definitely complicated! Essentially what I am attempting to do is boost products based on the number of times that particular product has been selected via historical searches using the same search term or phrase. On 7/7/2016 11:55 AM, Walter Underwood wrote: That is a

Re: Boosting query results

That is a very complicated design. What are you trying to achieve? Maybe there is a different approach that is simpler. wunder Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog) > On Jul 7, 2016, at 9:26 AM, Mark T. Trembley > wrote: > > That works with static

Re: Boosting query results

That works with static boosts based on documents matching the query "Boost2". I want to apply a different boost to documents based on the value assigned to Boost2 within the document. From my sample documents, when running a query with "Boost2," I want Document2 boosted by 20.0 and Document6 b

Re: Boosting query results

This looks like a job for “bq”, the boost query parameter. I used this to boost textbooks which were used at the student’s school. bq does not force documents to be included in the result set. It does affect the ranking of the included documents. bq=B1_ss:Boost2 will boost documents that match

Boosting query results

I have a question about the best way to rank my results based on a score field that can have different values per document and where each document can have different scores based on which term is queried. Essentially what I'm wanting to have happen is provide a list of terms that when matched

Re: Query results change

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 20:38 -0700, Shawn Heisey wrote: > Very likely what's happening is that sometimes your shards are > responding on a different timescale with each request, so the pieces > that get combined into the final result set arrive in a different > order. This causes the Java object co

Re: Query results change

n and again, the order of documents changes. So strictly > speaking although all documents are equally relevant, it will be very nice > if the order can stay the same so that users are confident about query > results. > > How can we make sure that the order does not change when the quer

Re: Query results change

though all documents are equally relevant, it will be very nice if the order can stay the same so that users are confident about query results. How can we make sure that the order does not change when the query is run again and again for documents that are equally relevant (i.e. their score is e

Re: Query results change

Data is indexed using Data Import Handler with clean=true, commit=true and optimize=true. After that there are no updates or delete. The setup is SolrCloud with 2 shards and 2 replicas each. If the data and query has not changed, one expects to see the same results on repeated searches; so it is

Re: Query results change

Probably the fact that information from deleted/updated documents is still hanging around in the corpus until merged away. The nub of the issue is that terms in deleted documents (or the replaced doc if you update) still influence tf/idf calculations. If you optimize as Binoy suggests, all of the

Re: Query results change

You should try debugging such queries to see how exactly they're being executed. That will give you an idea as to why you're seeing the results you see. On Fri, 15 Jan 2016, 19:05 Brian Narsi wrote: > We have an index of 25 fields. Currently number of records in index is > about 120,000. We are

Query results change

We have an index of 25 fields. Currently number of records in index is about 120,000. We are using parser: edismax qf: contains 8 fields fq: 1 field mm = 1 qs = 6 pf: containing g 3 fields bf: containing 1 field We have noticed that sometimes results change between two searches even if ever

Re: Using OR along with join query results causing NullPointerException in Solr 4.7.2

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:51 PM, SuReN wrote: > o=id} product_name:Desire* just the first guess, try to avoid the space in the clause above -- Sincerely yours Mikhail Khludnev Principal Engineer, Grid Dynamics

Using OR along with join query results causing NullPointerException in Solr 4.7.2

Processor.java:844) at org.apache.coyote.http11.Http11Protocol$Http11ConnectionHandler.process(Http11Protocol.java:583) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker.run(JIoEndpoint.java:447) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:812) What is right to use OR along with join query r

Re: Zero Query results

Screen captures generally get filtered out by the Apache e-mail, it didn't come through. But this makes no sense. The text_en field type you pasted should not be having the problems you're talking about. So if you add debug=true, you should be seeing your "Wednesday" query going against your fiel

Re: Zero Query results

You were right about finding only the Wednesday occurrences at the beginning of the line. But attached (if it works) is a screen capture of my admin UI. But unlike your suspicion, the index text is being parsed properly, it appears. So I'm uncertain where this leads me. Also attached is the

Re: Zero Query results

bq: However, I discovered that if I search on "Wednesday*" (trailing asterisk), then I get all the results containing Wednesday that I'm looking for! This almost always means you're not searching on the field you think you're searching on and/or the field isn't being analyzed as you think (i.e. th

Re: Zero Query results

Ok, Erick, you provided useful info to help with my understanding. However, I still get zero results when I search on literal text (e.g., "Wednesday"), even with making changes that you suggest. However, I discovered that if I search on "Wednesday*" (trailing asterisk), then I get all the resul

Re: Zero Query results

bq: There is no fieldType defined in my solrconfig.xml, unless you are referring to this line: Well, that's because you should be looking in schema.xml ;). This line from your stacktrace file is very suspicious: logtext:Wednesday It _looks_ like your logtext file is perhaps a "string" type

Re: Zero Query results

On 9/18/2015 8:33 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: The "field:*" syntax is something you should not get in the habit of using. It is a wildcard search. What this does under the covers is looks up all the possible terms in that field across the entire index, and constructs a Lucene query that actually i

Re: Zero Query results

On 9/18/2015 5:53 PM, Mark Fenbers wrote: > Using the browser interface to run a query on my indexed data, > specifying "q=logtext:*" gives me all 9800+ documents indexed -- as > expected. But if I specify something like "q=logtext:Sunday", then I > get zero results even though ~1000 documents con

Re: Zero Query results

What's the debug info (debug=true) for that query? Did you by chance change field types or query parser? > On Sep 18, 2015, at 19:53, Mark Fenbers wrote: > > Greetings! > > Using the browser interface to run a query on my indexed data, specifying > "q=logtext:*" gives me all 9800+ documents

Zero Query results

Greetings! Using the browser interface to run a query on my indexed data, specifying "q=logtext:*" gives me all 9800+ documents indexed -- as expected. But if I specify something like "q=logtext:Sunday", then I get zero results even though ~1000 documents contain the word Sunday. So I'm puz

Re: Combine multiple SOLR Query Results

iginal Message- > From: aniljayanti [mailto:aniljaya...@yahoo.co.in] > Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 6:20 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Combine multiple SOLR Query Results > > Hi, > > I am trying to work on combine multiple SOLR query results into single

RE: Combine multiple SOLR Query Results

I will be faster and simpler. But, also, highlight results should be better. hth, Charlie -Original Message- From: aniljayanti [mailto:aniljaya...@yahoo.co.in] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 6:20 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Combine multiple SOLR Query Results Hi, I am tryin

Combine multiple SOLR Query Results

Hi, I am trying to work on combine multiple SOLR query results into single result. Below is my case. 1. Look up search term against ‘track name’, log results 2. Look up search term against ‘artist name’, log results of tracks by those artists 3. Combine results 4. results by

Re: How do I add another unrelated query results to solr index

d also add following : -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-do-I-add-another-unrelated-query-results-to-solr-index-tp4128932p4129678.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: How do I add another unrelated query results to solr index

t possible ?                                                                                                                                                                         -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-do-I-add-another-unrelated-query-results-to-solr-index-tp4128932.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

How do I add another unrelated query results to solr index

-unrelated-query-results-to-solr-index-tp4128932.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

wrong query results with wdf and ngtf

Is there a way to tell ngramfilterfactory while indexing that number shall never be tokenized? then the query should be able to find numbers. Or do i have to change the ngram-min for numbers (not alpha) to 1, if that is possible? So to speak put the hole number as token and not all possible toke

Re: SolrCloud query results order master vs replica

Thank you Sir for that confirmation! Nic On Wed, 2/5/14, Chris Hostetter wrote: Subject: Re: SolrCloud query results order master vs replica To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Received: Wednesday, February 5, 2014, 11:33 AM : Just to make sure

Re: SolrCloud query results order master vs replica

: Just to make sure I interpret the results correctly: : - they all have a score of 1.7046129 : - the order they are presented in is therefore not related to the score, : it is just the order in which the data is internally stored (like an SQL : SELECT statement without ORDER BY clause) The ord

Re: SolrCloud query results order master vs replica

hey are presented in is therefore not related to the score, it is just the order in which the data is internally stored (like an SQL SELECT statement without ORDER BY clause) Follow up question: - If I want to force a sort operation, I should add a sort parameter in the query. The first sort

Re: SolrCloud query results order master vs replica

This should only be happening if the scores are _exactly_ the same, which is actually quite rare. In that case, the tied scores are broken by the internal Lucene document ID, and the relative order of the docs on the two machines isn't guaranteed to be the same, the internal ID can change during se

SolrCloud query results order master vs replica

Greetings, My setup is: - SolrCloud V4.3 - On collection - one shard - 1 master, 1 replica so each instance contains the entire index. The index is rather small and the replica is used for robustness. There is no need (IMHO) to split shard the index (yet, until the index gets bigger). My que

Re: question regarding dismax query results

Hi Vulcanoid, If you want to consider proximity, you need to use pf (phrase fields) and ps (phrase slop) parameter. Please see : http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrRelevancyFAQ#How_can_I_search_for_one_term_near_another_term_.28say.2C_.22batman.22_and_.22movie.22.29 P.S. edismax has more fine gra

question regarding dismax query results

Hi, I have a solr schema which has fields related to Indian legal judgments and want to provide a search engine on top of them. I came across a problem which I thought I would take the group's advise on. For discussion sake let us assume there are only two fields "assessee" and "itat_order" whic

Re: Query results in "no servers hosting shard: " with single sharded SolrCloud (with embedded ZK)

Hi Daniel; That's good to hear that I could help to solve your problem. Thanks; Furkan KAMACI 2013/12/11 Daniel Bryant > Ah! That's solved it - there were multiple missing (inactive) shards shown > in the Cloud panel. This is bizarre (as I'm specifying numShards=1 on the > JVM options), but d

Re: Query results in "no servers hosting shard: " with single sharded SolrCloud (with embedded ZK)

Ah! That's solved it - there were multiple missing (inactive) shards shown in the Cloud panel. This is bizarre (as I'm specifying numShards=1 on the JVM options), but deleting my zoo_data folder under the solr directory, and then restarting SolrCloud resulted in queries returning correct values

Re: Query results in "no servers hosting shard: " with single sharded SolrCloud (with embedded ZK)

Hi Daniel; Could you open the Solr admin page and check it? If there is no error message click on the Cloud link at left panel check the status of your node? Thanks; Furkan KAMACI 10 Aralık 2013 Salı tarihinde Daniel Bryant adlı kullanıcı şöyle yazdı: > Hi, > > I'm getting the error 'msg: "no s

Query results in "no servers hosting shard: " with single sharded SolrCloud (with embedded ZK)

Hi, I'm getting the error 'msg: "no servers hosting shard: " ' when trying to search on a freshly created SolrCloud instance with an embedded ZooKeeper and a single shard? My solr.xml is as follows: shard="1"/> And all the directories referenced i

Re: Storing query results

like I'm going to have to do something > like you've suggested within our application. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Storing-query-results-tp4086182p4086349.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Re: Storing query results

vocally has to > be this way :p > > Thanks for your input though, looks like I'm going to have to do something > like you've suggested within our application. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Storing-query-results-

Re: Storing query results

-- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Storing-query-results-tp4086182p4086349.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Storing query results

; > Your mail reminds me this blog, not sure about solr though. > > > http://blog.mikemccandless.com/2011/11/searcherlifetimemanager-prevents-broken.html > > > > > From: jfeist > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Friday, August

Re: Storing query results

query results I am in the process of setting up a search application that allows the user to view paginated query results.  The documents are highly dynamic but I want the search results to be static, i.e. I don't want the user to click the next page button, the query reruns, and now he

Storing query results

I am in the process of setting up a search application that allows the user to view paginated query results. The documents are highly dynamic but I want the search results to be static, i.e. I don't want the user to click the next page button, the query reruns, and now he has a different s

Re: why does "*" affect case sensitivity of query results

hello erik, thank you for the info - yes - i did notice ;) one more reason for us to upgrade from 3.5. thx mark -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/why-does-affect-case-sensitivity-of-query-results-tp4059801p406.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing

Re: why does "*" affect case sensitivity of query results

; > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/why-does-affect-case-sensitivity-of-query-results-tp4059801p4059814.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: why does "*" affect case sensitivity of query results

here is the jira link: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-219 -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/why-does-affect-case-sensitivity-of-query-results-tp4059801p4059814.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: why does "*" affect case sensitivity of query results

ntly, don't stem. << thx mark -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/why-does-affect-case-sensitivity-of-query-results-tp4059801p4059812.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: why does "*" affect case sensitivity of query results

gt; below are the specifics of my field and fieldType > >stored="true"/> > > > positionIncrementGap="100"> > > > > > > > > > > > > thx

why does "*" affect case sensitivity of query results

itivity-of-query-results-tp4059801.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: merging query results with ata from other source

Solr index. > > Now - what I need to extend/replace to be able to: > > 1) filter Solr queries with such remote data (I can fetch IDs of > documents that should be listed and I need to intersect it somehow with > query results)? > > 2) Somehow extend returned

merging query results with ata from other source

query results)? 2) Somehow extend returned results (documents itself or as additional section in response similar to highlighter) and provide related data (from external source) with selected documents. Any help appreciated. -- Maciej Liżewski

Re: Query results vs. facets results

LTON CITY:MILTON So now fq says: 134 groups with CITY:MILTON and faceted search says: 83 groups with CITY:MILTON. How can I see some information about the grouping in Solr? Thanks Erick! Regards, Tudor -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-results-vs-facets-results-tp3995079p3995388.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Query results vs. facets results

exing) results: > > > > 284 > 134 > > (i.e.: fq says: 134 groups with CITY:MILTON) > ... > > > > >... > 103 > > (i.e.: faceted search says: 103 groups with CITY:MILTON) > > I really believe that these different results have something to do with the > grouping that Solr makes, but I do not know how to dig into this. > > Thank you and best regards, > Tudor > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-results-vs-facets-results-tp3995079p3995156.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Query results vs. facets results

says: 134 groups with CITY:MILTON) ... ... 103 (i.e.: faceted search says: 103 groups with CITY:MILTON) I really believe that these different results have something to do with the grouping that Solr makes, but I do not know how to dig into this. Thank you and best regards, Tudor -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-results-vs-facets-results-tp3995079p3995156.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Query results vs. facets results

says: 134 groups with CITY:MILTON) ... ... 103 (i.e.: faceted search says: 103 groups with CITY:MILTON) I really believe that these different results have something to do with the grouping that Solr makes, but I do not know how to dig into this. Thank you and best regards, Tudor -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-results-vs-facets-results-tp3995079p3995154.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Query results vs. facets results

284 134 (i.e.: fq says: 134 groups with CITY:MILTON) ... ... 103 (i.e.: faceted search says: 103 groups with CITY:MILTON) I really believe that these different results have something to do with the grouping that Solr makes, but I do not know how to dig into this. Than

Re: Query results vs. facets results

4 (i.e.: fq says: 134 groups with CITY:MILTON) ... ... 103 (i.e.: faceted search says: 103 groups with CITY:MILTON) I really believe that these different results have something to do with the grouping that Solr makes, but I do not know how to dig into this. Thank you and best regards, Tudor -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-results-vs-facets-results-tp3995079p3995150.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Query results vs. facets results

.truncate=true&facet=true&facet.field=CITY&group.ngroups=true > > yields > > > > > > 103 > > I would expect to have the same number (134) in this facet result as well. > Could you please let me know why these two results are different? > > Thank you, > Tudor > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-results-vs-facets-results-tp3994988.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Query results vs. facets results

lease let me know why these two results are different? Thank you, Tudor -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-results-vs-facets-results-tp3995079.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Query results vs. facets results

e know why these two results are different? Thank you, Tudor -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Query-results-vs-facets-results-tp3994988.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: sort by publishedDate and get published Date in solr query results

Original Message- From: Shameema Umer > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 7:37 AM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: sort by publishedDate and get published Date in solr query > results > > > Versions: Nutch: 1.4 and Solr: 3.4

  1   2   >