Re: Grouping and sorting Together

Hi Neo, Please mention the expected result as well. Do you want to sort "item sold" group wise or result wise? Use sort for the former while group.sort

Re: Grouping on Exact Match

Message- > From: Emir Arnautović [mailto:emir.arnauto...@sematext.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:31 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Grouping on Exact Match > > Hi Gopesh, > No it is not - at least not in a way I was thinking. I should have b

RE: Grouping on Exact Match

I am using the above query. Thanks, Gopesh Sharma -Original Message- From: Emir Arnautović [mailto:emir.arnauto...@sematext.com] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:31 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Grouping on Exact Match Hi Gopesh, No it is not - at least not in a

Re: Grouping on Exact Match

auto...@sematext.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:16 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Grouping on Exact Match > > Hi Gopesh, > You are probably grouping on field that is analysed so “Consulting” is group > term. What you need to do is to have name fie

RE: Grouping on Exact Match

...@sematext.com] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 4:16 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Grouping on Exact Match Hi Gopesh, You are probably grouping on field that is analysed so “Consulting” is group term. What you need to do is to have name field that is not alalysed and group on

Re: Grouping on Exact Match

Hi Gopesh, You are probably grouping on field that is analysed so “Consulting” is group term. What you need to do is to have name field that is not alalysed and group on that field. If you want to “group” on query input, that is not grouping - you simply use phrase query and all results are of t

Re: grouping in solr cloud shard replicas

On 1/6/2018 11:25 AM, SANJAY. wrote: Please let me know how to achieve group by in solr could env. We tried grouping in solr cloud shard replicas to fetch unique search result from solr for custom field we . we are getting exception saying unexpected docvalues type "SORTED_SET (expected SORTED)"

Re: Grouping and group.facet performance disaster

While I can't say whether it affects you in this case, Solr 6.4.1 has serious performance issues. I'd suggest upgrading to at least 6.4.2. --Ere 31.5.2017, 14.16, Marek Tichy kirjoitti: Hi, I'm getting a very slow response times on grouping, especially on facet grouping. Without grouping, th

Re: Grouping and group.facet performance disaster

Did you try sub-facets ( http://yonik.com/json-facet-api/ ) if that meets your facet grouping requirements or try Collapse/Expand Results. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Collapse+and+Expand+Results Thnx On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Marek Tichy wrote: > Hi, > > I'm gettin

Re: Grouping by a multivalued field

Shacky Quote "A multivalued field is useful when there are more than one value present for the field. An easy example would be tags, there can be multiple tags that need to be indexed...". So yes, you are on the right track. Cheers -- Rick https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5800762/what-is-the-u

Re: Grouping and result pagination

On 3/21/2017 10:34 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > Restating the original problem: I cannot paginate through the groups > in a grouped query. The first page works, subsequent pages do not. I > have a distributed index. Co-locating documents in the same group > onto the same shard is going to require

Re: Grouping and result pagination

On 3/17/2017 9:26 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: On 3/17/2017 9:07 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: "group.ngroups and group.facet require that all documents in each group must be co-located on the same shard in order for accurate counts to be returned." That is not how things work right now. The index has 1

Re: Grouping and result pagination

On 3/17/2017 9:07 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: > I think the answer is that you have to co-locate the docs with the > same value you're grouping by on the same shard whether in SolrCloud > or not... > > Hmmm: from: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Result+Grouping#ResultGrouping-Dist

Re: Grouping and result pagination

I think the answer is that you have to co-locate the docs with the same value you're grouping by on the same shard whether in SolrCloud or not... Hmmm: from: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Result+Grouping#ResultGrouping-DistributedResultGroupingCaveats "group.ngroups and group.

Re: Grouping by simhash signature

Maybe there is some way to override equals function of grouping (change "==" to strdist)? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Grouping-by-simhash-signature-tp4243236p4244541.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Grouping by simhash signature

On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 13:00 -0700, Nickolay41189 wrote: > I try to implement NearDup detection by SimHash > algorithm in Solr. [...] > How can I get groups of nearDup by /simhash_signature/? You could follow the suggested recipe at the page y

Re: Grouping by simhash signature

: I try to implement NearDup detection by SimHash I'm not really familiar with simhash, but based on your description of it, i'm not sure that any of Solr's deduplication, grouping, or collapsing features will really help you here... : 1) each document has a field /simhash_signature/ that sto

Re: Grouping by simhash signature

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Nickolay41189 wrote: > I try to implement NearDup detection by SimHash > algorithm in Solr. > Let's say: > 1) each document has a field /simhash_signature/ that stores a sequence of > bits. > 2) that in order to

Re: Grouping facets: Possible to get facet results for each Group?

Great - can't wait to try this out! Many thanks for your help on pointing me towards this new faceting feature. Thanks, Peter On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Alessandro Benedetti < benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote: > It will not be an impediment, if you have a flat document with single > valu

Re: Grouping facets: Possible to get facet results for each Group?

It will not be an impediment, if you have a flat document with single valued field interested, you can use Pivot Facets and apply stats over the facets as well. Take a look to the modern Json faceting approach Yonik introduced. Since I start using it I strongly recommend it, it's amazingly clear to

Re: Grouping facets: Possible to get facet results for each Group?

Yes, you are right about that - I've used pivots before and they do need to be used judiciously. Fortunately, we only ever use single-value fields, as it gives some good advantages in a heavily sharded environment. Our document structure is, by it's very nature always flat, so it could be an impedi

Re: Grouping facets: Possible to get facet results for each Group?

mmm let's say that nested facets are a subset of Pivot Facets. if pivot faceting works with the classic flat document structure, the sub facet are working with any nested structure. So be careful about pivot faceting in a flat document with multi valued fields, because you lose the relation across

Re: Grouping facets: Possible to get facet results for each Group?

Hi, Thanks for your response. I did have a look at pivots, and they could work in a way. We're still on Solr 4.3, so I'll have to wait for sub-facets - but they sure look pretty cool! Peter On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Alessandro Benedetti < benedetti.ale...@gmail.com> wrote: > Can you mode

Re: Grouping facets: Possible to get facet results for each Group?

Can you model your business domain with Solr nested Docs ? In the case you can use Yonik article about nested facets. Cheers On 13 October 2015 at 05:05, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > Could you use the new nested facets syntax? > http://yonik.com/solr-subfacets/ > > Regards, >Alex. >

Re: Grouping facets: Possible to get facet results for each Group?

Could you use the new nested facets syntax? http://yonik.com/solr-subfacets/ Regards, Alex. Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs and even a newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ On 11 October 2015 at 09:51, Peter Sturge wrote: > Been trying to coerce Group faceting to give some fac

Re: Grouping and recip function not working with Sharding

Hi Erick, Below example is for grouping issue not for sorting. I have indexed 1839 records with 'NAME' field in all, There may be duplicate record for each 'NAME' value. Let say There are 5 records with NAME='A-SERIES',similarly 3 records with NAME='E-SERIES' etc. I have total 264 unique NAME va

Re: Grouping and recip function not working with Sharding

Erick Erickson gmail.com> writes: > > From the reference guide: > > group.ngroups and group.facet require that all documents in each group > must be co-located on the same shard in order for accurate counts to > be returned. Document routing via composite keys can be a useful > solution in ma

Re: Grouping and recip function not working with Sharding

>From the reference guide: group.ngroups and group.facet require that all documents in each group must be co-located on the same shard in order for accurate counts to be returned. Document routing via composite keys can be a useful solution in many situations. It's not clear what you think the pr

Re: Grouping Performance Optimation

If u need only 200 results grouped, u can easily do it with some external code, it will be much faster anyway. Also, it's widely suggested to use docValues="true" for fields, by which group is performed, it really helps (I can only say numbers in terms of RAM usage, but speed increases as-well).

Re: Grouping Performance Optimation

You should look at CollapsinQParserPlugin. It's much faster compared to a Grouping query. https://wiki.apache.org/solr/CollapsingQParserPlugin It has a limitation though, check the following JIRA if it might affect your use-case. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6143 -- View this me

Re: Grouping based on multiple filters/criterias

umeshprasad wrote > Solr does support date mathematics in filters / queries . So your > timestamps intervals can be dynamic .. how would it be done for this case then? retrieving bunch of documents sorted by timestamp, then depending on some interval like 1 hour, those should be grouped all togeth

Re: Grouping based on multiple filters/criterias

Solr does support date mathematics in filters / queries . So your timestamps intervals can be dynamic .. On 22 August 2014 05:51, deniz wrote: > umeshprasad wrote > > Grouping supports group by queries. > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Result+Grouping > > > > However y

Re: Grouping based on multiple filters/criterias

umeshprasad wrote > Grouping supports group by queries. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Result+Grouping > > However you will need to form the group queries before hand. > > Thanks & Regards > Umesh Prasad > Search > Lead@ > > in.linkedin.com/pub/umesh-prasad/6/5bb/580/

Re: Grouping based on multiple filters/criterias

Grouping supports group by queries. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Result+Grouping However you will need to form the group queries before hand. On 18 August 2014 12:47, deniz wrote: > is it possible to have multiple filters/criterias on grouping? I am trying > to > do s

Re: Grouping on a multi-valued field

Hi Erick, Thanks again, I'm using the same thing as workaround. I first use "pivot faceting" and another call to fetch actual documents. On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > OK, I see what you're trying to do. Unfortunately grouping is just not > built to support multivalu

Re: Grouping on a multi-valued field

OK, I see what you're trying to do. Unfortunately grouping is just not built to support multivalued fields. The nearest thing I can think of is "pivot faceting", but that only returns counts, not the actual documents. Sorry I can't be more help Erick On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Bhoomit Vas

Re: Grouping on a multi-valued field

Hi Erick, Thanks for the response. What am I trying to do? : I have a multivalued field called tags for e.g. - { - id: "1", - *tags*:["solr","lucene","facet"], *type*:"post" }, - { - id: "2", - *tags*:["solr","multi-valued","grouping"], *type*:"qu

Re: Grouping on a multi-valued field

what would "grouping on a multivalued field" mean? Count the same doc separately for each value in the MV field? Use the first value? This seems similar to the problem of sorting on fields with more than one token, any approach I can think of will be wrong. But this smells like an XY problem. Wh

Re: Grouping performance problem

Hello there, I am faceing the same problem. Did anyone found a solution yet? Thank you, arres -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Grouping-performance-problem-tp3995245p4138419.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: grouping of multivalued fields

Am 21.05.2014 15:07, schrieb Joel Bernstein: You may want to investigate the group.func option. This would allow you to plug in your own logic to return the group by key. I don't think there is an existing function that does exactly what you need so you may have to write a custom function. I th

Re: grouping of multivalued fields

You may want to investigate the group.func option. This would allow you to plug in your own logic to return the group by key. I don't think there is an existing function that does exactly what you need so you may have to write a custom function. Joel Bernstein Search Engineer at Heliosearch On W

RE: Grouping performance improvement

Ok so I cannot move forward with this, If I use format like q=a&fq=category:(value1 value2 value3) this gives me results with first category. What i want is top n results per filter category and I dont want to use group as performance seems to be very bad for groups my observation is group query

RE: Grouping performance improvement

Thanks Alexey for giving some really good points. Just to make sure I get it right Are you suggesting 1. do facets on category first lets say I get 10 distinct category 2. do another query where q=search query and fq= facet category values May be im missing something, however Im not sure how to

RE: Grouping performance improvement

You can think of using facets by category field instead of grouping. It will be faster and categorization can be done against multiple category fields. Try different facet methods. If you don't need number of documents in each category and number of unique categories is relatively low, you mig

Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ?

Hi and thanks all, There is no easy solution implemented in Solr for my problem. I will try "namedistinct" you said, might improve workaround solution. Perhaps, the main problem are the names :) because *group.limit* do same as basic rows

Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ?

Hi Liu, Aha now I see ... old format does not display that info. For faceting solution https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2242 could be relevant. By the way how are these things in CollapsingQueryParser? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Other+Parsers#OtherParsers-Coll

Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ?

hi @Ahmet I've thought about using group.ngroups=true , but when you use group.main=true, there's no "ngroups" field in the response. and according to http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldCollapsing, the result might not be correct in solrcloud. I don't like using facet for this but seems have to...

Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ?

Hi Tasmaniski, I don't follow. How come Liu's faceting workaround and n.groups=true produce different results? On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 6:08 PM, tasmaniski wrote: @kamaci Ofcourse. That is the problem. "group.limit is: the number of results (documents) to return for each group." Num

Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ?

ski : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org : Subject: Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ? : : @kamaci : Ofcourse. That is the problem. : : "group.limit is: the number of results (documents) to return for each : group." : NumFound

Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ?

@kamaci Ofcourse. That is the problem. "group.limit is: the number of results (documents) to return for each group." NumFound is number of total found, but *not* sum number of *return for each group.* @Liu Bo seems to be the is only workaround for problem but it's to much expensive to go throug

Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ?

Hi Liu, Did you consider using group.ngroups=true ? It should give the same number as your faceting solution.  Ahmet On Tuesday, December 31, 2013 10:22 AM, Liu Bo wrote: Hi I've met the same problem, and I've googled it around but not found direct solution. But there's a work around, do a

Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ?

Hi I've met the same problem, and I've googled it around but not found direct solution. But there's a work around, do a facet on your group field, with parameters like true your_field -1 1 and then count how many facted pairs in the response. This should be the same with the number

Re: Grouping results with group.limit return wrong numFound ?

Hi; group.limit is: the number of results (documents) to return for each group. Defaults to 1. Did you check the page here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=32604232 Thanks; Furkan KAMACI 25 Aralık 2013 Çarşamba tarihinde tasmaniski adlı kullanıcı şöyle yazdı: >

Re: Grouping performance problem

Bumping up this thread as I'm facing similar issue . Any solution ? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Grouping-performance-problem-tp3995245p4098566.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Grouping by field substring?

Hi Jack, On Sep 11, 2013, at 5:34pm, Jack Krupansky wrote: > Do a copyField to another field, with a limit of 8 characters, and then use > that other field. Thanks - I should have included a few more details in my original question. The issue is that I've got an index with 200M records, of whi

Re: Grouping by field substring?

Do a copyField to another field, with a limit of 8 characters, and then use that other field. -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: Ken Krugler Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 8:24 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Grouping by field substring? Hi all, Assuming I w

Re: Grouping

I'm getting the same error...Is there any workaround to this? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Grouping-tp2820116p4086674.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Grouping

I'm getting the same error...Is there any workaround to this? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Grouping-tp2820116p4086425.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Grouping results based on the field which matched the query

: I wanted to know if Solr has some functionality to group results based on : the field that matched the query. : : So if I have id, name and manufacturer in my document structure, I want to : know how many results are there because its manufacturer matched the q and : how many results are there

Re: Grouping results based on the field which matched the query

Not sure if you are looking for this.. http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldCollapsing -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Grouping-results-based-on-the-field-which-matched-the-query-tp4065670p4066882.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com

Re: Grouping search results by field returning all search results for a given query

I would think pagination is resolved by obtaining the numFound value for your returned groups. If you have numFound=6 then each page of 20 items (one item per company) would imply a total of 6 pages. You'll have to arbitrate for the variance here…but it would seem to me you need as many "pages

Re: Grouping search results by field returning all search results for a given query

Thank you for the prompt reply jason. The group.offset parameter is working for me, now I can iterate through all items for each company. The problem I'm having right now is pagination. Is there a way how this can be implemented out of the box with solr? Before I was using the group.main=true for

Re: Grouping search results by field returning all search results for a given query

Luis, I am presuming you do not have an overarching grouping value here…and simply wish to show a standard search result that shows 1 item per company. You should be able to accomplish your second page of desired items (the second item from each of your 20 represented companies) by using the gr

Re: Grouping performance problem

Agnieszka, Did you find a good solution to your performance problem with grouping? I have an index with 45m records and am using grouping and the performance is atrocious. Any advice would be very welcome! Thanks in advance, David -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nab

Re: Grouping results - set document return count not group.limit

Hi Thank you for the reply. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Prakhar Birla wrote: > Hi Rajani, > > I recently tried to solve a similar problem as the one you have. (I think) > Solr doesn't support a param to achieve this because if we were to limit > the no of documents returned, to get the next

Re: Grouping results - set document return count not group.limit

Hi Rajani, I recently tried to solve a similar problem as the one you have. (I think) Solr doesn't support a param to achieve this because if we were to limit the no of documents returned, to get the next result set the starting offset of each group will be different based on the number of documen

Re: Grouping by a date field

Hey, great advice Amit, Jack, and Chris. It's been a while since I got such a nice array of options! My response... yes, Amit, I thought of your way before posting... I was just thinking, eh, there must be a way in SOLR, since it was so easy to do the facets. So I wanted an alternative first bef

Re: Grouping by a date field

: What's the performance impact of doing this? the function approach should have slower query times compared to the "new field containing day" approach because it has to do the computation for every doc at query time, but it's less flexible because you have to know in advance you want to use i

Re: Grouping by a date field

absolute requirement for all particular changes to how an app uses Solr. -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: Amit Nithian Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:04 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Grouping by a date field What's the performance impact of doing

Re: Grouping by a date field

ue&group.func=**rint(div(ms(date_dt),mul(24,** > mul(60,mul(60,1000) > > -- Jack Krupansky > > -Original Message- From: Amit Nithian > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:29 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Grouping by a date field >

Re: Grouping by a date field

an Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:29 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Grouping by a date field Why not create a new field that just contains the day component? Then you can group by this field. On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM, sdanzig wrote: I'm trying to create a SO

Re: Grouping by a date field

Why not create a new field that just contains the day component? Then you can group by this field. On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM, sdanzig wrote: > I'm trying to create a SOLR query that groups/field collapses by date. I > have a field in -MM-dd'T'HH:mm:ss'Z' format, "datetime", and I'm

Re: Grouping for categories / performance

Maybe you simply don't have enough heap memory space available to the Java JVM for Solr to do large groups. -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: ilay Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 2:20 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Grouping for categories / performance Hello all

Re: Grouping based on multiple criteria

I have a similar issue, and I am solving it by implementing my own components and dealiing with the resultings doc IDs public class MerchantShuffleComponent extends SearchComponent { ... ctx.docs = shuffledDocList; rb.rsp.getValues().remove("response"); rb.rsp.add("respons

Re: Grouping performance problem

goes up to 2 sec. We use > solr 3.6 and tuned off all kind of caching. > Maybe your problem is with caching and displaying all fields? > > Hope this may help. > > Alex. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Agnieszka Kukałowicz > To: solr-user > Sent

Re: Grouping performance problem

caching and displaying all fields? Hope this may help. Alex. -Original Message- From: Agnieszka Kukałowicz To: solr-user Sent: Mon, Jul 16, 2012 10:04 am Subject: Re: Grouping performance problem I have server with 24GB RAM. I have 4 shards on it, each of them with 4GB RAM for java

Re: Grouping performance problem

e data folder? > > > > -Original Message- > From: Agnieszka Kukałowicz > To: solr-user > Sent: Mon, Jul 16, 2012 6:16 am > Subject: Re: Grouping performance problem > > > Hi Pavel, > > I tried with group.ngroups=false but didn't notice a big improvement.

Re: Grouping performance problem

What are the RAM of your server and size of the data folder? -Original Message- From: Agnieszka Kukałowicz To: solr-user Sent: Mon, Jul 16, 2012 6:16 am Subject: Re: Grouping performance problem Hi Pavel, I tried with group.ngroups=false but didn't notice a big improvement

Re: Grouping performance problem

Re: Grouping performance problem

Hi Pavel, I tried with group.ngroups=false but didn't notice a big improvement. The times were still about 4000 ms. It doesn't solve my problem. Maybe this is because of my index type. I have millions of documents but only about 20 000 groups. Cheers Agnieszka 2012/7/16 Pavel Goncharik > Hi

Re: Grouping performance problem

Hi Agnieszka , if you don't need number of groups, you can try leaving out group.ngroups=true param. In this case Solr apparently skips calculating all groups and delivers results much faster. At least for our application the difference in performance with/without group.ngroups=true is significant

Re: Grouping and Averages

gt; To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Grouping and Averages > > I don't think aggregations in the Solr group by are completed yet. There's > a Lucene or Solr issue implementing group by count that could be adapted to > implement average for example. > >

Re: Grouping and Averages

-Original Message- From: Jason Rutherglen Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 4:39 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Grouping and Averages I don't think aggregations in the Solr group by are completed yet. There's a Lucene or Solr issue implementing group by count tha

Re: Grouping and Averages

ftware Engineer > http://LinkedIn.com/in/**JeremyBranham<http://LinkedIn.com/in/JeremyBranham> > http://jeremybranham.**wordpress.com/<http://jeremybranham.wordpress.com/> > http://Zeroth.biz > > -Original Message- From: Jason Rutherglen > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 2

Re: Grouping and Averages

://LinkedIn.com/in/JeremyBranham http://jeremybranham.wordpress.com/ http://Zeroth.biz -Original Message- From: Jason Rutherglen Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 2:45 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Grouping and Averages Average should be doable in Solr, maybe not today, not sure. Median

Re: Grouping and Averages

Average should be doable in Solr, maybe not today, not sure. Median is the challenge :) Try Hive. On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Walter Underwood wrote: > It sounds like you need a database for analytics, not a search engine. > > Solr cannot do aggregates like that. It can select and group, bu

Re: Grouping and Averages

It sounds like you need a database for analytics, not a search engine. Solr cannot do aggregates like that. It can select and group, but to calculate averages you'll need to fetch all the results over the network and calculate them yourself. wunder On Jul 7, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Jeremy Branham wr

Re: Grouping and Averages

Thanks Jack! Jeremy Branham Software Engineer http://LinkedIn.com/in/JeremyBranham http://jeremybranham.wordpress.com/ http://Zeroth.biz -Original Message- From: Jack Krupansky Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 11:16 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Grouping and Averages

Re: Grouping and Averages

You can always check the Lucene/Solr archives: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/ Your message is here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/201207.mbox/%3CBAY170-DS274C673A7C82D716E7E000BAED0%40phx.gbl%3E It does not yet appear to have any responses

Re: Grouping ngroups count

Hi Francois, The issue you describe looks like a similar issue we have fixed before with matches count. Open an issue and we can look into it. Martijn On 1 May 2012 20:14, Francois Perron wrote: > Thanks for your response Cody, > >  First, I used distributed grouping on 2 shards and I'm sure th

Re: Grouping ngroups count

Thanks for your response Cody, First, I used distributed grouping on 2 shards and I'm sure then all documents of each group are in the same shard. I take a look on JIRA issue and it seem really similar. There is the same problem with group.ngroups. The count is calculated in second pass s

RE: Grouping ngroups count

Hello, When you say 2 slices, do you mean 2 shards? As in, you're doing a distributed query? If you're doing a distributed query, then for group.ngroups to work you need to ensure that all documents for a group exist on a single shard. However, what you're describing sounds an awful lot like t

Re: Grouping queries

> > Where is Join documented? I looked at > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Join and see no reference to "fromIndex". > Also does this work in a distributed environment? > The "fromIndex" isn't documented in the wiki It is mentioned in the issue and you can find in the Solr code: https://issues.ap

Re: Grouping queries

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Martijn v Groningen wrote: > On 22 March 2012 03:10, Jamie Johnson wrote: > >> I need to apologize I believe that in my example I have too grossly >> over simplified the problem and it's not clear what I am trying to do, >> so I'll try again. >> >> I have a situat

Re: Grouping queries

On 22 March 2012 03:10, Jamie Johnson wrote: > I need to apologize I believe that in my example I have too grossly > over simplified the problem and it's not clear what I am trying to do, > so I'll try again. > > I have a situation where I have a set of access controls say user, > super user and

Re: Grouping queries

I need to apologize I believe that in my example I have too grossly over simplified the problem and it's not clear what I am trying to do, so I'll try again. I have a situation where I have a set of access controls say user, super user and ultra user. These controls are not necessarily hierarchic

Re: Grouping queries

Join looks interesting for this as well, is this currently supported in SolrCloud? On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote: > What would you recommend instead, I had thought about block join perhaps I'm > open to suggestions tbough > > > On Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Martijn v Gronin

Re: Grouping queries

What would you recommend instead, I had thought about block join perhaps I'm open to suggestions tbough On Wednesday, March 21, 2012, Martijn v Groningen < martijn.v.gronin...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure if grouping is the right feature to use for your > requirements... Grouping does have an

Re: Grouping queries

I'm not sure if grouping is the right feature to use for your requirements... Grouping does have an impact on performance which you need to take into account. Depending on what grouping features you're going to use (grouped facets, ngroups), grouping performs well on large indices if you use filter

Re: Grouping and sorting results

Nothing that I know of wil give you what you want OOB, but there are two possibilities: Query Elevantion Component is a broad-brush way to go, but it's not very flexible so if 10 minutes looking at how it works doesn't excite you, don't spend too much time on it. If, at query time, you know your

  1   2   >