Thanks for the context David - I didn't realize this was built as an
internal mechanism and then documented later on. A few other thoughts
below:
> {!terms}, it suggests a reference to the TermsQParser, but when you write
> {!terms=a,b,c} it suggests local-params
I agree that the two are easy to
This is confusing because when you write {!terms}, it suggests a reference
to the TermsQParser, but when you write {!terms=a,b,c} it suggests
local-params, with key "terms" and value "a,b,c" -- entirely different
things. I think that "terms" local-param to faceting was a purely internal
thing that
Sorry, correction, taking "the" time
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 22:18:30 +0300
uyilmaz wrote:
> Thanks for taking time to write a detailed answer.
>
> We use Solr to both store our data and to perform aggregations, using
> faceting or streaming expressions. When required analysis is too complex to
>
Thanks for taking time to write a detailed answer.
We use Solr to both store our data and to perform aggregations, using faceting
or streaming expressions. When required analysis is too complex to do in Solr,
we export large query results from Solr to a more capable analysis tool.
So I guess al
Hmm. Fields used for faceting will also be used for filtering, which is a kind
of search. Are docValues OK for filtering? I expect they might be slow the
first time, then cached.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
> On Oct 19, 2020, at 11:15 A
uyilmaz:
Hmm, that _is_ confusing. And inaccurate.
In this context, it should read something like
The Text field should have indexed="true" docValues=“false" if used for
searching
but not faceting and the String field should have indexed="false"
docValues=“true"
if used for faceting but not s
As you've observed, it is indeed possible to facet on fields with
docValues=true, indexed=false; but in almost all cases you should
probably set indexed=true. 1. for distributed facet count refinement,
the "indexed" approach is used to look up counts by value; 2. assuming
you're wanting to do somet
Thanks! This also contributed to my confusion:
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_4/faceting.html#field-value-faceting-parameters
"If you want Solr to perform both analysis (for searching) and faceting on the
full literal strings, use the copyField directive in your Schema to create two
ver
I think this is all explained quite well in the Ref Guide:
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_6/docvalues.html
DocValues is a different way to index/store values. Faceting is a
primary use case where docValues are better than what 'indexed=true'
gives you.
Regards,
Alex.
On Mon, 19 Oct 20
Thanks for bring closure to this. Yeah, “escaping hell” is something that
happens to us all, something that works in a browser doesn’t work
from SolrJ and neither one may work with curl and……
Pretty often, BTW, I look at the Solr log. It takes a little practice to
reconstruct the query, but it’s
Thanks for your reply! Yes, it turned out to be an issue with the way the
request was being sent, which was cURL that required special handling and
escaping of spaces and special characters. Using another client cleared
this issue and the request below worked perfectly now.
Best,
A.
On Thu, Jul 4
Might be a formatting error with my mail client, but the very first line is not
well formed.
q: * is incorrect
q=*:*
I do not see that example on the page either. Looks like you took the bit
that starts with stats=true and mis-typed the q clause.
Best,
Erick
> On Jul 3, 2019, at 5:08 AM, Ah
Hi,
As per the documentation recommendation of using pivot with stats component
instead (
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_1/faceting.html#combining-stats-component-with-pivots),
replacing the stats options that were previously used with the newer pivot
options as follows:
q: *
stats=true
s
Hi,
As per the documentation recommendation of using pivot with stats component
instead (
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_1/faceting.html#combining-stats-component-with-pivots),
replacing the stats options that were previously used with the newer pivot
options as follows:
q: *
stats=true
s
I've consulted regarding this case. This is not an issue, you may bring
facet back adding not yet documented property processEmpty:true
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:42 AM Mikhail Khludnev wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm not sure but it sounds like an issue, would you mind to raise one at
> https://issues.ap
Hi,
Which version of Solr are you using when you face this problem?
Regards,
Edwin
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 15:43, Mikhail Khludnev wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm not sure but it sounds like an issue, would you mind to raise one at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/ ?
>
> On Sun, Feb 17, 201
Hello,
I'm not sure but it sounds like an issue, would you mind to raise one at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/ ?
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 6:57 PM Arvydas Silanskas <
nma.arvydas.silans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good evening,
>
> I am using facet json api to query aggregation data, and
On 9/25/2018 2:14 PM, Hanjan, Harinder wrote:
Hello!
When starting a new topic on the mailing list, do not reply to an
existing message. Your thread is buried within a thread originally
titled "Extracting top level URL when indexing document".
https://home.apache.org/~hossman/#threadhijack
-Original Message-
From: Alexandre Rafalovitch [mailto:arafa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 3:14 PM
To: solr-user
Subject: [EXT] Re: Faceting with a multi valued field
What specifically do you control? Just keyword (and "Communities:"
part is locked?) or anythin
;BANFF TRAIL - BNF"
If that's correct, then this does not resolve the issue. I still get 2 values
under Communities facet.
Harinder
-Original Message-
From: John Blythe [mailto:johnbly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 2:50 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subj
What specifically do you control? Just keyword (and "Communities:"
part is locked?) or anything after q= or anything that allows multiple
variables?
Because if you could isolate search value, you could use for example
facet.prefix, set in solrconfig as a default parameter and populated
from the sa
you can update your filter query to be a facet query, this will apply the
query to the resulting facet set instead of the Communities field itself.
--
John Blythe
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 4:15 PM Hanjan, Harinder
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am doing faceting on a field which has multiple values and i
f EnumFieldType be useable as a facet field?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> Peter Tyrrell, MLIS
> Lead Developer at Andornot
> 1-866-266-2525 x706 / ptyrr...@andornot.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Tyrrell
> Sent: September 14, 2018 3:04 PM
hanks,
Peter
Peter Tyrrell, MLIS
Lead Developer at Andornot
1-866-266-2525 x706 / ptyrr...@andornot.com
-Original Message-
From: Peter Tyrrell
Sent: September 14, 2018 3:04 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Faceting with EnumFieldType in 7.1
Yes.
Peter Tyrrell, MLIS
Yes.
Peter Tyrrell, MLIS
Lead Developer at Andornot
1-866-266-2525 x706 / ptyrr...@andornot.com
-Original Message-
From: Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo
Sent: September 13, 2018 8:15 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Faceting with EnumFieldType in 7.1
Was the document re-indexed in
Was the document re-indexed in Solr 7.1?
Regards,
Edwin
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018 at 23:38, Peter Tyrrell wrote:
> I updated an older Solr 4.10 core to Solr 7.1 recently. In so doing, I
> took an old 'gradeLevel_enum' field of type EnumField and made it an
> EnumFieldType, since the former has been d
The first two mistakes are:
- using fq for children fields ,
- using a value master_id:0 as a parents' filter
Regarding the question, you are getting non-zero facets because you exclude
filter produces empty results.
Absence of error is a bug for me. The problem is that eff is doubles not
strings with ordinals. It would be possible after
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-10528
Now you can try to create several type:query subfacets passing either
{!frange} or just plain Lucene query (there is a slight c
On 5/2/2018 2:56 PM, Weffelmeyer, Stacie wrote:
> Question on faceting. We have a dynamicField that we want to facet
> on. Below is the field and the type of information that field generates.
>
>
>
> cid:image001.png@01D3E22D.DE028870
>
This image is not available. This mailing list will almos
On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 16:58 +0200, Wael Kader wrote:
> Facets are taking around 1 minute to return data now.
Can you verify if this is due to updates causing a new searcher to be
opened or if it just takes that long? Easy way to test it to stop
updating the index then do a few call with different
Apart from the performance, to get a "word cloud" from a subset of documents
it is a slighly different problem than getting the facets out of it.
If my understanding is correct, what you want is to extract the "significant
terms" out of your results set.[1]
Using faceting is a rough approximation
Hi,
I want to know the best option for getting word cloud in SOLR.
Is it saving the data as multivalued, using vector, JSON faceting(didn't
work with me)? Terms doesn't work because I can't provide any criteria.
I don't mind changing the design but I need to know the best feasible way
that won't
Hi Wael,
You can try out JSON faceting - it’s not just about rq/resp format, but it uses
different implementation as well. In any case you will have to index documents
differently in order to be able to use docValues.
HTH
Emir
--
Monitoring - Log Management - Alerting - Anomaly Detection
Solr &
bq: 10k as a max number of rows.
This doesn't matter. In order to facet on the word count, Solr has to
be prepared to facet on all possible docs. For all Solr knows, a
_single_ document may contain every word so the size of the structure
that contains the counters has to be prepared for N buckets,
Hi,
The whole index has 100M but when I add the criteria, it will filter the
data to maybe 10k as a max number of rows.
The facet isn't working when the total number of records in the index is
100M but it was working at 5M.
I have social media & RSS data in the index and I am trying to get the wo
He said that it's using to get a word cloud, if it's not related to the
search and it's a generic word cloud of the index, using the luke request
handler to get the first 250 o 500 word could work.
http://localhost:8983/solr/core/admin/luke?fl=text&numTerms=500&wt=json
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 4:4
_Why_ do you want to get the word counts? Faceting on all of the
tokens for 100M docs isn't something Solr is ordinarily used for. As
Emir says it'll take a huge amount of memory. You can use one of the
function queries (termfreq IIRC) that will give you the count of any
individual term you have an
Hi Wael,
You are faceting on analyzed field. This results in field being uninverted -
fieldValueCache being built - on first call after every commit. This is both
time and memory consuming (you can check in admin console in stats how much
memory it took).
What you need to do is to create multiv
Hi,
I am using a custom field. Below is the field definition.
I am using this because I don't want stemming.
Regards,
Hi Wael,
Can you provide your field definition and sample query.
Thanks,
Emir
--
Monitoring - Log Management - Alerting - Anomaly Detection
Solr & Elasticsearch Consulting Support Training - http://sematext.com/
> On 6 Nov 2017, at 08:30, Wael Kader wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am having an index
I am pleased to report that we are in Production on Solr 5.5.3 with
comparable performance to Solr 4.8.1 through leveraging facet.method=uif as
well as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9176. Thanks to
everyone who worked on these!
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Solr User wrote:
> Bel
Thanks for the information.
Will try them out.
Regards,
Edwin
On 5 October 2016 at 02:58, Mikhail Khludnev wrote:
> Edwin,
> It seems like you try to pull document hierarchy back. That's usually done
> by searching parents and fl=[child ..],,.
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Zheng Lin Edwin
Edwin,
It seems like you try to pull document hierarchy back. That's usually done
by searching parents and fl=[child ..],,.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo
wrote:
> Some of the sample documents are like the following:
>
> Author is the Header, while Books are the Child
>
> Au
I _think_ what is happening is that you are going in both parent and
child directions in your filters.
Try making your query ('q') define your original domain
(q=type_s:author) and then 'books' goes inside the parent "author"
scope and that's where you change your domain.
Regards,
Alex.
Some of the sample documents are like the following:
Author is the Header, while Books are the Child
Author: Edwin
Books: Book 1
Book 2
Book 3
Author: John
Books: Book 4
Book 5
For this query:
http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=*:*
&json.facet={
Perhaps show a couple sample documents, and then what data you're
looking for in a response?
This stuff can be tough to pin down without concrete examples.
-Yonik
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:22 AM, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo
wrote:
> I have tried to use this nested query, but I still can't get results fo
I have tried to use this nested query, but I still can't get results for
the list of books.
http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=*:*
&json.facet={
items:{
type:terms,
field:author_s,
domain: { blockParent : "type_s:author" },
facet:{
by1:{
type:terms,
field:book_s,
doma
You need to switch the domain to the child records. It is somewhere in the
guide or Yonik's blog linked.
Regards,
Alex
On 4 Oct 2016 1:55 PM, "Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to do nested faceting on both records in parent and child in
> a single query?
>
> For example,
Below is some further testing. This was done in an environment that had no
other queries or updates during testing. We ran through several scenarios
so I pasted this with HTML formatting below so you may view this as a
table. Sorry if you have to pull this out into a different file for
viewing,
I plan to re-test this in a separate environment that I have more control
over and will share the results when I can.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Solr User wrote:
> Certainly. And I would of course welcome anyone else to test this for
> themselves especially with facet.method=uif to see if
Certainly. And I would of course welcome anyone else to test this for
themselves especially with facet.method=uif to see if that has indeed
bridged the gap between Solr 4 and Solr 5. I would be very happy if my
testing is invalid due to variance, problem in process, etc. One thing I
was ponderin
On Tue, 2016-09-27 at 15:08 -0500, Solr User wrote:
> Further testing indicates that any performance difference is not due
> to deletes. Both Solr 4.8.1 and Solr 5.5.2 benefited from removing
> deletes.
Sanity check: Could you describe how you test?
* How many queries do you issue for each test?
I wonder why in the "facet_field" section of the first query it says:
"facet_fields": {"id": []}
when it should be saying
"facet_fields": {"name": []}
Also, why is the second query not including the fq in the echoParams
section.
What is that other query with fq=aggregationname:story?
This is not
Further testing indicates that any performance difference is not due to
deletes. Both Solr 4.8.1 and Solr 5.5.2 benefited from removing deletes.
The times appear to converge on an optimized index. Below are the
details. Not sure what else to make of this at this point other than
moving forward w
Please tell some more
- Solr version
- Add to your query: &debugQuery=true&echoParams=all and paste the result
- How is “string_ci” defined ()?
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> 26. sep. 2016 kl. 23.59 skrev Beyene, Iyob :
>
> Hi,
>
> When I query solr
From: Beyene, Iyob
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:22 AM
To: solr-user
Subject: Re: Faceting search issues
Here is the result from running the first query, i.e
http://localhost:8983/solr/core/select?q=*:*&facet=true&facet.field=name&rows=0&facet.mincount=2&echoParams=
"text","echoParams": "all","facet.mincount":
"2",
"collection": "core","rows": "0","facet": "true","wt": "json"}},"response":
{"numFound": 2,"s
Benedetti
> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:30:38 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Faceting search issues
>
> When you say "check for duplicates" what do you mean ? no duplicate tokens
> are in the index per field.
> What is your definition o
: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:30:38 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Faceting search issues
When you say "check for duplicates" what do you mean ? no duplicate tokens
are in the index per field.
What is your definition of duplicate for a term? Do you consider low
When you say "check for duplicates" what do you mean ? no duplicate tokens
are in the index per field.
What is your definition of duplicate for a term? Do you consider lowercase
and uppercase version duplicate ?
Maybe you have an analysis problem.
MinCount=2 means : "include only terms appearing a
Hi !
At the time we didn't investigate the deletion implication at all.
This can be interesting.
if you proceed with your investigations and discover what changed in the
deletion approach, I would be more than happy to help!
Cheers
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Solr User wrote:
> Thanks aga
Thanks again for your work on honoring the facet.method. I have an
observation that I would like to share and get your feedback on if possible.
I performance tested Solr 5.5.2 with various facet queries and the only way
I get comparable results to Solr 4.8.1 is when I expungeDeletes. Is it
possi
Just a followup on this, I found that the method below using URL params
doesn't work when using the Rest API, if you try to set the field in your
facet object to something like "{!ex=dt}doctype" it throws an error. Here's
the documentation on the correct method to use with the API.
http://yonik.co
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Erick Erickson
wrote:
> We can always use more documentation. One of the
> valuable things about people getting started is that it's an
> opportunity to clarify documents. Sometimes the people who
> develop/write the docs jump into the middle and assume
> the reade
>> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Jamal, Sarfaraz <
>> > sarfaraz.ja...@verizonwireless.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thank you Andrew, that looks like exactly what I am looking for =)
>> >> Thank you Robert, it looks like we are both doing
re both doing it in similar fashion
> =)
> >> Thank you MaryJo for jumping right in!
> >>
> >> Sas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Andrew Chillrud [mailto:achill...@opentext.com]
> >> Sent: Thu
>> From: Andrew Chillrud [mailto:achill...@opentext.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 2:17 PM
>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Subject: RE: [E] Re: Faceting Question(s)
>>
>> It is possible to get the original facet counts for the field you are
>>
--Original Message-
> From: Andrew Chillrud [mailto:achill...@opentext.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 2:17 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [E] Re: Faceting Question(s)
>
> It is possible to get the original facet counts for the field you are
> filtering
, 2016 2:17 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: [E] Re: Faceting Question(s)
It is possible to get the original facet counts for the field you are filtering
on (we have been using this since Solr 3.6). Don't know if this can be extended
to get the original counts for all fields ho
t;>> **select?q=video&hl=true&hl.fl=*&hl.snippets=20&facet=true&facet.field=team
>>>
>>> Then when I specify which team
>>> http://
>>>
>>> **select?q=video&hl=true&hl.fl=*&hl.snippets=20&facet=true&
separating them with commas.
- Andy -
-Original Message-
From: Robert Brown [mailto:r...@intelcompute.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 2:12 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [E] Re: Faceting Question(s)
MaryJo, I think you've mis-understood. The counts are different
.snippets=20&facet=true&facet.field=team&fq=team:rollback
The counts are obviously different now, as the result set is limited to
one team.
Sas
-Original Message-
From: MaryJo Sminkey [mailto:mjsmin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 1:56 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.
iously different now, as the result set is limited to
> one team.
>
> Sas
>
> -Original Message-
> From: MaryJo Sminkey [mailto:mjsmin...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 1:56 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: [E] Re: Faceting Question(s)
&g
s=20&facet=true&facet.field=team&fq=team:rollback
The counts are obviously different now, as the result set is limited to one
team.
Sas
-Original Message-
From: MaryJo Sminkey [mailto:mjsmin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 1:56 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
In other words... to diagnose such a problem it would really help to see
the exact parameters and filters you are using on each of the searches.
Mary Jo
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Jamal, Sarfaraz <
sarfaraz.ja...@verizonwireless.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I am working on impl
Jamai - what is your q= set to? And do you have a fq for the original
query? I have found that if you do a wildcard search (*.*) you have to be
careful about other parameters you set as that can often result in the
numbers returned being off. In my case, my defaults had things like edismax
settings
Interesting developments :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9176
I think we found why term Enum seems slower in recent Solr !
In our case it is likely to be related to the commit I mention in the Jira.
Have a check Joel !
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Alessandro Benedetti <
abenede
I am investigating this scenario right now.
I can confirm that the enum slowness is in Solr 6.0 as well.
And I agree with Joel, it seems to be un-related with the famous faceting
regression :(
Furthermore with the legacy facet approach, if you set docValues for the
field you are not going to be ab
The enum slowness is interesting. It would appear on the surface to not be
related to the FieldCache issue. I don't think the main emphasis of the
JSON facet API has been the enum approach. You may find using the JSON
facet API and eliminating the use of enum meets your performance needs.
With the
Joel,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. I tried the JSON
Facet API for one query that uses facet.method=enum (since this one has a
ton of unique values and performed better with enum) but this was way
slower than even the slower Solr 5 times. I did not try the new API with
Yes, SOLR-8096 is the issue here.
I don't believe indexing with docValues is going to help too much with
this. The enum slowness may not be related, but I'm not positive about
that.
The major slowdowns are likely due to the removal of the top level
FieldCache from general use and the removal of t
Does anyone know the answer to this?
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Solr User wrote:
> I recently was attempting to upgrade from Solr 4.8.1 to Solr 5.4.1 but had
> to abort due to average response times degraded from a baseline volume
> performance test. The affected queries involved faceting
bq: which of those date values will be used for faceting when I
use range-search faceting on this field?
All of them. Which values match in a multiValued field, range
query or not, have no bearing on the facet counts. Faceting
essentially says "take all the docs that match the query and,
for each
My apology for not being clear -- I left out the keyword "range search"
with facet. Let me try again.
Using DateRangeField field type, if this field is multiValued and I have 3
date values stored for one record, 5 for another, etc., which of those date
values will be used for faceting when I use
Yes.
What do you mean "how does it work"? The low-level
details or what?
Basically, faceting just... facets. I.e. for each unique
value in the field specified it counts the number of
docs in the result set that have that value.
So if you have a doc with two dates and facet on that
field, say 1/1
Thanks Jamie.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Check out the patch attached to
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096. I had considered making
> the method uif after I had done most of the work, it would be trivial to
> change and would probably be m
Bill,
Check out the patch attached to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096. I had considered making
the method uif after I had done most of the work, it would be trivial to
change and would probably be more aligned with not adding unexpected
changes to people that are currently using f
Can we add method=uif back when not using the JSON Facet API too?
That would help a lot of people.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Vincenzo D'Amore
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > given that solr 5.4 is finally released, is this what's more
Also can we get the capability to choose the method of faceting in the
older faceting component? I'm not looking for complete feature parity just
the ability to specify the method. As always thanks.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Can we still specify the cache implemen
Can we still specify the cache implementation for the field cache? When
this change occurred to faceting (uninverting reader vs field ) it
prevented us from moving to 5.x but if we can get the 4.x functionality
using that api we could look to port to the latest.
Jamie
On Dec 17, 2015 9:18 AM, "Yo
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:57 AM, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> given that solr 5.4 is finally released, is this what's more stable and
> efficient version of solrcloud ?
>
> I have a website which receives many search requests. It serve normally
> about 2000 concurrent requests, but someti
This fix definitely help for facet.field over docvalues field on
mult-segment index since 5.4.
I suppose it's irrelevant to JSON Facets, non-dv field, and pre 5.4.
I can not comment about comparing perfomance of dv and non-dv fields,
because "it depends" (с) benchmarking and profiler are the only a
Same question here
Wondering if faceting performance is fixed and how to take advantage of it ?
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Vincenzo D'Amore
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> given that solr 5.4 is finally released, is this what's more stable and
> efficient version of solrcloud ?
>
> I have a webs
Hi all,
given that solr 5.4 is finally released, is this what's more stable and
efficient version of solrcloud ?
I have a website which receives many search requests. It serve normally
about 2000 concurrent requests, but sometime there are peak from 4000 to
1 requests in few seconds.
On Janu
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Toke Eskildsen
wrote:
> If we had a hashing method String->long and guaranteed that there would
> be no collisions (or we accepted the occasional faulty result), then we
> could avoid the segment->global map as well as the centralized term
> server. To my knowledg
Thanks Toke for the answer, let me comment inline :
On 26 November 2015 at 08:32, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 15:56 +, Alessandro Benedetti wrote:
> > I would like to have docValues because facets are going to be heavy on
> > those fields.
>
> > *Faceting approach *
> > *1)
On Wed, 2015-11-25 at 15:56 +, Alessandro Benedetti wrote:
> I would like to have docValues because facets are going to be heavy on
> those fields.
> *Faceting approach *
> *1) *Indexing the human readable field value
Technically this will be a SORTED or SORTED_SET, which again means that
a p
Uwe, it's good to know! I mean that you've recovered. Take care!
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Uwe Reh wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. I had an ugly flu.
>
> SOLR-7730 seems to work fine. Using docValues with Solr
> 5.4.0-2015-09-29_08-29-55 1705813 makes my faceted queries fast again.
> (90ms v
Sorry for the delay. I had an ugly flu.
SOLR-7730 seems to work fine. Using docValues with Solr
5.4.0-2015-09-29_08-29-55 1705813 makes my faceted queries fast again.
(90ms vs. 2ms) :-)
Thanks
Uwe
Am 27.09.2015 um 20:32 schrieb Mikhail Khludnev:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Uwe Re
On Sun, 2015-09-27 at 14:47 +0200, Uwe Reh wrote:
> Like Walter Underwood wrote, in technical sense faceting on authors
> isn't a good idea.
In a technical sense, there is no good or bad about faceting on
high-cardinality fields in Solr. The faceting code is fairly efficient
(modulo the newly dis
1 - 100 of 340 matches
Mail list logo
