Anyone with any ideas?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-sorting-situation-tp4091966p4092688.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Otis brings up a good point. Possibly you could put logic in your function
query to account for this. But it may be that you can't achieve the mix
you're looking for without taking direct control.
That is the main reason that SOLR-4465 was put out there, for cases where
direct control is needed. I
Hi,
But can you ever get this universally right?
In some cases there is very little inventory and in some case there is
a ton of inventory, so even if you use a small boost for inventory,
when the intentory is very large, that will overpower the title boost,
no?
Otis
--
Solr & ElasticSearch Suppo
If you had a high boost on the title with a moderate boost on the inventory
it sounds like you'd get boots first ordered by inventory followed by jeans
ordered by inventory. Because the heavy title boost would move the boots to
the top. You can play with the boost factors to try and get the mix you
Thanks for the fast response. I am still just learning solr so please bear
with me.
This still sounds like the wrong products would appear at the top if they
have more inventory unless I am misunderstanding. High boost low boost
seems to make sense to me. That alone would return the more rele
It sounds like you might be able to get the mix you want with three
different boosts:
1) High boost on title
2) Lower boost on description
3) Function query boost on inventory
The high boost on title will help push products with matches in the title
to the top. The function query boost on invento
Hi ballusethuraman,
I am sure you have done this already, but just to be sure, did you reindex your
existing kilometer data after you changed the data type from string to long? If
not, then you should.
-sujit
On Mar 23, 2013, at 11:21 PM, ballusethuraman wrote:
> Hi, I am having a colum
Yes I did.. But there is no change in result..
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-sorting-is-not-working-properly-on-long-Fields-tp4050834p4050844.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 24 March 2013 11:56, ballusethuraman wrote:
> Hi, I am having a column named 'Kilometers' and when I try to sort with that
> it is not working properly.
[...]
> Initially Kilometers column was having string as datatype and I thought the
> problem could be because of that and i changed the datat
>Are you using a TrieDateField for the dates?
Yes
>Consider creating and re-using a filter for the keywords and let the
>query consist of the date range only.
In this case, do I have to configure any cache or solr's default
configurations are enough?
>Guessing here: You request all the results fr
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 08:00 +0200, Amey Patil wrote:
> Our solr index (Solr 3.4) has over 100 million docuemnts.
[...]
> *((keyword1 AND keyword2...) OR (keyword3 AND keyword4...) OR ...) AND
> date:[date1 TO *]*
> No. of keywords can be in the range of 100 - 1000.
> We are adding sort parameter *'
Boom!
This works: sort=map(query($qq,-1),0, ,
1)+desc,score+desc&qq=domain:domainA
Thanks,
Mike
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Mike Austin wrote:
> I have content that I index for several different domains. What I'd like
> to do is have all search results found for domainA returned
Was that field multivalued="true" earlier by any chance??? Did you rebuild
the index from scratch after changing it to multivalued="false" ???
Regards
Pravesh
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-sorting-issue-can-not-sort-on-multivalued-field-tp3564266p356683
: sort=query({!v="area_id: 78153"}) desc, score desc
:
: What I want to achieve is sort by if there is a match with area_id, then
: sort by the actual score
I think you can use the "map" function here to map all scores greater then
zero (matching docs) to some fixed value. something like this
Your query is going against the default field (defined in schema.xml). Have
you tried a fielded search?
And it would best to start a new thread for new questions see:
http://people.apache.org/~hossman/#threadhijack
Best
Erick
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 3:46 AM, Pratik wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for your
Hi,
Were you able to sort the results using alphaOnlySort ?
If yes what changes were made to the schema and data-config ?
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-sorting-problem-tp486144p2889473.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabb
Hi,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm, using "commit=true" while indexing, and it does index the records and
show the number of records indexed.
The problem is that search yields 0 records ( numFound="0" ).
e.g.
00onappl
There are some entries for spell checking in my schema too.
e.g.
The S
Two scenarios:
1) you call the indexing API but do not call 'commit'. This makes data
visible to searching.
2) the default solrconfig has HTTP caching turned on. So you redo the
search url, and you get the old result. This is really really
annoying. And you have to change the configuration to speci
Hello,
I got over that problem but now i am facing a new problem.
Indexing works but search does not.
I used the following line in the schema:-
and
I'm trying to use the default "alphaOnlySort" in the sample schema.xml.
Database is MySQL, there is a column/field named ColXYZ
My data-
Let's see the query you submit. This looks like a typo or an
improperly specified field name
":foodDesc"
Best
Erick
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 8:18 AM, Pratik wrote:
> Were you able to get it work .. if yes how ?
> I'm having almost the same problem.
>
> I used the " fieldType name="alphaOnlyS
Were you able to get it work .. if yes how ?
I'm having almost the same problem.
I used the " fieldType name="alphaOnlySort" class="solr.TextField" as in
the sample schema.xml , to define a field named "alphaname".
Then copied from one of the fields name "foodDescUS" to "alphaname".
When i
--- On Mon, 3/14/11, Denis Kuzmenok wrote:
> From: Denis Kuzmenok
> Subject: Re: Solr sorting
> To: "Ahmet Arslan"
> Date: Monday, March 14, 2011, 12:24 PM
>
> > --- On Mon, 3/14/11, Denis Kuzmenok
> wrote:
>
> >> From: Denis Kuzmenok
> --- On Mon, 3/14/11, Denis Kuzmenok wrote:
>> From: Denis Kuzmenok
>> Subject: Solr sorting
>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Date: Monday, March 14, 2011, 10:23 AM
>> Hi.
>> Is there any way to make such scheme working:
>> I have many documents, each
>> has a random field to enabl
--- On Mon, 3/14/11, Denis Kuzmenok wrote:
> From: Denis Kuzmenok
> Subject: Solr sorting
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Monday, March 14, 2011, 10:23 AM
> Hi.
> Is there any way to make such scheme working:
> I have many documents, each
> has a random field to enable random
>
Savvas-Andreas Moysidis wrote:
> In my understanding sorting on a field for which analysis has yielded
> multiple terms just doesn't make sense..
> If you have document#1 with a field A which has the terms Epsilon, Alpha,
> and document#2 with field A which has the terms Beta, Delta and request
> a
Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu] wrote:
> I too sometimes have similar use cases, and my best ideas about how to
> solve them involve using faceting --- you can facet on a multi-valued
> field, and you can sort facets--but you can only sort facets by "index
> order", a strict byte-by-byte sort.
You may not sort on a tokenized field. You may not sort on a multiValued
field. You can only have one term in a field.
If there are more search terms than documents, A) sorting doesn't mean
anything and B) Lucene will throw an exception.
Erick Erickson wrote:
In general, the behavior when so
Erick Erickson wrote:
> In general, the behavior when sorting is not predictable when
> sorting on a tokenized field, which "text" is. What would
> it mean to sort on a field with "erick" "Moazzam" as tokens
> in a single document? Should it be in the "e"s or the "m"s?
Might it be possible or reas
In general, the behavior when sorting is not predictable when
sorting on a tokenized field, which "text" is. What would
it mean to sort on a field with "erick" "Moazzam" as tokens
in a single document? Should it be in the "e"s or the "m"s?
That said, you probably want to watch out for case
Be
For anyone who faced the same problem, changing the field to string
from text worked!
-Moazzam
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Moazzam Khan wrote:
> The field type of the first name and last name is text. Could that be
> why it's not sorting properly? I just changed it to string and started
> a
The field type of the first name and last name is text. Could that be
why it's not sorting properly? I just changed it to string and started
a full-import. Hopefully that will work.
Thanks,
Moazzam
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Jayendra Patil
wrote:
> need additional information .
> Sorti
need additional information .
Sorting is easy in Solr just by passing the sort parameter
However, when it comes to text sorting it depends on how you analyse
and tokenize your fields
Sorting does not work on fields with multiple tokens.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FAQ#Why_Isn.27t_Sorting_Worki
I have trouble balancing between popularity and search relevance.
The trouble is combining boost factors and a mm(minimum match) of less than
100%.
The mm leads the search to return also less relevant items.
Two conflicting main scenarios exist:
- generic category search (say something like tft)
If you want to have some categories before another ones, but the other
categories sorted alphabeticaly, you could create another field on your
index like cat_priority and put numerical values, so you can sort by this
field and by secondarily by your category name.
2008/5/27 anuvenk <[EMAIL PROTECT
riginal Message
>> From: pmg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:19:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: solr sorting problem
>>
>>
>> I forgot to mention that I made changes to schema after indexing.
>
e.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:19:52 PM
> Subject: Re: solr sorting problem
>
>
> I forgot to mention that I made changes to schema after indexing.
>
>
> pmg wrote:
> >
> > I have problem sorting solr results. Here is my solr confi
I forgot to mention that I made changes to schema after indexing.
pmg wrote:
>
> I have problem sorting solr results. Here is my solr config
>
>
>
> stored="true"/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> search query
>
> select/?&rows=100&start=0&q=artistId:100346%20AND%20type:trac
Thanks a ton, that worked
-Original Message-
From: Ryan McKinley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:08 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SOLR sorting - question
Kasi Sankaralingam wrote:
> Do I need to select the fields in the query that I
Kasi Sankaralingam wrote:
Do I need to select the fields in the query that I am trying to sort on?, for
example if I want sort on update date then do I need to select that field?
I don't think so... are you getting an error?
I run queries like:
/select?q=*:*&fl=name&sort=added desc
without p
I don't think you have to. Just try the query on the REST interface and you
will know.
On Dec 5, 2007 9:56 AM, Kasi Sankaralingam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do I need to select the fields in the query that I am trying to sort on?,
> for example if I want sort on update date then do I need to se
The boost is a way to adjust the weight of that field, just like you
adjust the weight of any other field. If the boost is dominating the
score, reduce the weight and vice versa.
wunder
On 5/10/07 9:22 PM, "Chris Hostetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Is this correct? bf is a boosting fun
: I actually used the _val_ hack, so query foo:bar
: _val_:"ord(popularity)^0.5", still playing with it though its still
: skewing results a bit to much.
if your query string is...
foo:bar _val_:ord(popularity)^0.5
..then part of your problem may be that (unless you've changed the default
o
: Is this correct? bf is a boosting function, so a function is needed there,
no?
: If I'm not missing someting, the ^0.5 is just a boost, and "popularity"
: is just a (numeric) field. So boosting a numeric field wouldn't make
: sense, but appying it to a function would. Am I missing something?
]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 8:05:53 PM
Subject: Re: Solr Sorting, merging/weighting sort fields
No problem. Use a boost function. In a DisMaxRequestHandler spec
in solrconfig.xml, specify this:
popularity^0.5
This value will be added to the score
OTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 8:05:53 PM
Subject: Re: Solr Sorting, merging/weighting sort fields
No problem. Use a boost function. In a DisMaxRequestHandler spec
in solrconfig.xml, specify this:
popularity^0.5
This value will be added to the score
Thanks, worked perfectly!
-Nick
On 5/10/07, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No problem. Use a boost function. In a DisMaxRequestHandler spec
in solrconfig.xml, specify this:
popularity^0.5
This value will be added to the score before ranking.
You will probably need to f
No problem. Use a boost function. In a DisMaxRequestHandler spec
in solrconfig.xml, specify this:
popularity^0.5
This value will be added to the score before ranking.
You will probably need to fuss with the multiplier to get the popularity
to the right proportion of the total score. I
47 matches
Mail list logo
