> : I am going to adjust my schema, re-index, and try again. See if that
> : doesn't fix this problem. I didn't know that having the uniqueKey be a
> : textField was a bad idea.
>
>
> https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_3/other-schema-elements.html#OtherSchemaElements-UniqueKey
>
> "The fieldTyp
: > whoa... that's not normal .. what *exactly* does the fieldType declaration
: > (with all analyzers) look like, and what does the declaration
: > look like?
: >
: >
:
:
:
NOTE: "text_general" != "text_gen_sort"
Assuming your "text_general" declaration looks like it does in the
_default
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:18 PM Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> : > a) What is the fieldType of the uniqueKey field in use?
> : >
> :
> : It is a textField
>
> whoa... that's not normal .. what *exactly* does the fieldType declaration
> (with all analyzers) look like, and what does the declaration
>
: > a) What is the fieldType of the uniqueKey field in use?
: >
:
: It is a textField
whoa... that's not normal .. what *exactly* does the fieldType declaration
(with all analyzers) look like, and what does the declaration
look like?
you should really never use TextField for a uniqueKey ...
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 8:32 PM Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> Based on the info provided, it's hard to be certain, but reading between
> the lines here are hte assumptions i'm making...
>
> 1) your core name is "dbtr"
> 2) the uniqueId field for the "dbtr" core is "debtor_id"
>
> ..are those assumpt
Based on the info provided, it's hard to be certain, but reading between
the lines here are hte assumptions i'm making...
1) your core name is "dbtr"
2) the uniqueId field for the "dbtr" core is "debtor_id"
..are those assumptions correct?
Two key pieces of information that doesn't seem to be
Hi Salman,
1. For 1st one:
One suggestion could be, don't create [@, ., -, _, +, #, *] as
individual tokens. I guess you need to update your tokenizer in that case.
2. For the second issue, is the score of both the results same? If the
score is same and the queries are same then the reason
--- On Wed, 12/22/10, satya swaroop wrote:
> From: satya swaroop
> Subject: Different Results..
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2010, 10:44 AM
> Hi All,
> i am getting
> different results when i used with some escape keys..
> for example:::
> 1) when i
We need more information about the the analyzers and tokenizers of the
default field of your search
Marco Martínez Bautista
http://www.paradigmatecnologico.com
Avenida de Europa, 26. Ática 5. 3ª Planta
28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón
Tel.: 91 352 59 42
2010/12/22 satya swaroop
> Hi All,
> i a
OK I solved the problem. It turns out that I was connecting to the
server using its FQDN (rosen.ifactory.com). When, instead, I connect to
it using the name "rosen" (which maps to the same IP using the default
domain name configured in my resolver, ifactory.com), I get results back.
I am loo
Yes - I really only have the one solr instance. And I have plenty of
other cases where I am getting good results back via solrj. It's really
a mystery. Unfortunately I have to catch up on other stuff I have been
neglecting, but I'll follow up when I'm able to get a solution...
-Mike
On 10
strange..are you absolutely sure the two queries are directed to the same
Solr instance? I'm running the same query from the admin page (which
specifies the xml format) and I get the exact same results as solrj.
On 21 October 2010 22:25, Mike Sokolov wrote:
> quick follow-up: I also notice that
quick follow-up: I also notice that the query from solrj gets version=1,
whereas the admin webapp puts version=2.2 on the query string, although
this param doesn't seem to change the xml results at all. Does this
indicate an older version of solrj perhaps?
-Mike
On 10/21/2010 04:47 PM, Mike
Tushar,
Could you ask on solr-user in the future, please?
Your last sentence got cut off. Do you have LowerCaseFilter in both the index
and query-time analyzer sections? Perhaps you should just paste that section
of the config.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
14 matches
Mail list logo
