Sorry to not respond for a week, it got busy here.
Here are the URL params for one request:
qt=simple
facet=true
facet.limit=-1
facet.mincount=3
q=type:group AND qt_all:IsCriticallyAcclaimed AND qt_all:InGenreComedy
facet.field=qt_toddscoregenres
facet.field=qt_genres
facet.field=qt_moods
[and so
OK, I guess details on the new faceting stuff would be in order.
Which faceting are using? Are you sure that it never occurred before
(i.e. it slipped under the radar)?
Obviously, the key is reproducibility here, but this has all the
earmarks of some weird threading issue, it seems, at le
I already ruled out cosmic rays. It has happened on different
hardware and at different times of day, including low load.
The only thing associated with it is load from a new faceted
browse thing we turned on.
wunder
On 4/14/09 2:23 PM, "Grant Ingersoll" wrote:
> Is bad memory a possibility?
Is bad memory a possibility? i.e. is it the same machine all the
time? Is there any recognizable pattern for when it happens?
-Grant (grasping at straws)
On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
Nope. This is a slave, so no indexing happens, just a sync. The
sync happens once
Nope. This is a slave, so no indexing happens, just a sync. The
sync happens once per day. It went bad at a different time.
wunder
On 4/14/09 11:42 AM, "Grant Ingersoll" wrote:
> Are there changes occuring when it goes bad that maybe aren't committed?
>
> On Apr 14, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Walter Un
Are there changes occuring when it goes bad that maybe aren't committed?
On Apr 14, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
But why would it work for a few days, then go bad and stay bad?
It fails for every multi-term query, even those not in cache.
I ran a test with more queries than the ca
But why would it work for a few days, then go bad and stay bad?
It fails for every multi-term query, even those not in cache.
I ran a test with more queries than the cache size.
We do use autowarming.
wunder
On 4/14/09 10:55 AM, "Yonik Seeley" wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Walter
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Walter Underwood
wrote:
> The JaroWinkler equals was broken, but I fixed that a month ago.
>
> Query cache sounds possible, but those are cleared on a commit,
> right?
Yes, but if you use autowarming, those items are regenerated and if
there is a problem with equ
The JaroWinkler equals was broken, but I fixed that a month ago.
Query cache sounds possible, but those are cleared on a commit,
right?
I could run with a cache size of 0, since our middle tier HTTP
cache is leaving almost nothing for the caches to do.
I'll try that explain. The stored fields fo
It just occurred to me that a query cache issue could potentially
cause this... if it's caching it would most likely be a query.equals()
implementation incorrectly returning true.
Perhaps check the JaroWinkler.equals() first?
Also, when one server starts to return bad results, have you tried
using
Dang, had another server do this.
Syncing and committing a new index does not fix it. The two servers
show the same bad results.
wunder
On 4/11/09 9:12 AM, "Walter Underwood" wrote:
> Restarting Solr fixes it. If I remember correctly, a sync and commit
> does not fix it. I have disabled snappu
Restarting Solr fixes it. If I remember correctly, a sync and commit
does not fix it. I have disabled snappuller this time, so I can study
the broken instance.
wunder
On 4/11/09 5:03 AM, "Grant Ingersoll" wrote:
>
> On Apr 10, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
>
>> Normally, both "cha
On Apr 10, 2009, at 5:50 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
Normally, both "changeling" and "the changeling" work fine. This one
server is misbehaving like this for all multi-term queries.
Yes, it is VERY weird that the term "changeling" does not show up in
the explain.
A server will occasionally "g
Normally, both "changeling" and "the changeling" work fine. This one
server is misbehaving like this for all multi-term queries.
Yes, it is VERY weird that the term "changeling" does not show up in
the explain.
A server will occasionally "go bad" and stay in that state. In one case,
two servers w
On Apr 10, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
We have a rare, hard-to-reproduce problem with our Solr 1.3 servers,
and
I would appreciate any ideas.
Ocassionally, a server will start returning results with really poor
relevance. Single term queries work fine, but multi-term queries ar
If you don't see the attachments, you can get them here:
http://wunderwood.org/solr/
wunder
On 4/10/09 10:56 AM, "Walter Underwood" wrote:
> We have a rare, hard-to-reproduce problem with our Solr 1.3 servers, and
> I would appreciate any ideas.
>
> Ocassionally, a server will start returning
16 matches
Mail list logo
