If at all possible, denormalize the data
But you can also use Solr's Join capability here, see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Other+Parsers#OtherParsers-JoinQueryParser
Best,
Erick
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Pithon Philippe wrote:
> Hello,
> I have two documents type
On 6 March 2014 11:23, Kishan Parmar wrote:
> Thanks,
> my documents are xml files i am attaching that document in this and in my
> project i have to search from each field defined in schema.xml
[...]
The type for State in your schema is "string" which is a non-analysed
field that stores the te
Thanks,
my documents are xml files i am attaching that document in this and in my
project i have to search from each field defined in schema.xml
and my output should be in solr is like
{
"responseHeader": {
"status": 0,
"QTime": 1,
"params": {
"indent": "true",
"q": "S
Hi Kishan,
can you please give us example document query pair that query should retrieve
that document.
e.g. query q=State:"tamil nadu" should return what document text?
Ahmet
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:04 PM, Kishan Parmar wrote:
Thanks ,
but
still no change in output ---> q=State:"tam
Thanks ,
but
still no change in output ---> q=State:"tamil nadu" it parse as
"q": "State:\"tamil nadu\""
Regards,
Kishan Parmar
Software Developer
+91 95 100 77394
Jay Shree Krishnaa !!
2014-03-06 0:17 GMT+05:30 Ahmet Arslan :
> Hi,
>
> I suspect q=State:tamil nadu parsed as State:tamil te
Hi,
I suspect q=State:tamil nadu parsed as State:tamil text:nadu. You can confirm
this by adding debugQuery=on.
Either use quotes q=State:"tamil nadu"
or use term query parser q={!term f=State}tamil nadu
Ahmet
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 8:29 PM, Kishan Parmar wrote:
hi there
my schema file
@ Pravesh: It's 2 seperate cores, not 2 indexes. Sorry for that.
@ Erick: Yes, I've seen this suggestion and it seems to be the only possible
solution. I'll look into it.
Thanks for your answers guys!
Kurt
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> If I read this correctly, one app
If I read this correctly, one approach is to specify an
increment gap in a multiValued field, then search for phrases
with a slop less than that increment gap. i.e.
incrementGap=100 in your definition, and search for
"apple orange"~99
If this is gibberish, please post some examples and we'll
try s
>>We're using Solr to search on a Shop index and a Product index
Do you have 2 separate indexes (using distributed shard search)?? I'm sure
you are actually having only single index.
>> Currently a Shop has a field `shop_keyword` which also contains the
>> keywords of the products assigned to it.
Well... finally... isn't solr problem. Isn't solr config problem.
Is Microsoft's problem:
http://flyingtriangles.blogspot.com/2006/08/workaround-to-ssis-strings-are-not.html
Thank you very much erick!! you really helped on the solution of this!
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Erick Erickson wr
Right, I *love* problems like this... NOT
You might get some joy out of using TrimFilterFactory along with
KeywordAnalyzer,
something like this:
>
but it depends upon what your fields are padded with
Best
Erick
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Ezequiel Calderara wrote:
> Hi Erick
Hi Erick, you were right.
I'm looking the source of the search result (instead of the render of
internet explorer :$) and i see this:
"Programas_Home
"
So i think that is the problem is in the SSIS process that retrieves data
from the DB and sends it to solr.
The data type in the db is VARCHAR(10
OK, it works perfectly for me on a 1.4.1 instance. I've looked over your
files a couple of times and see nothing obvious (but you'll never find
anyone better at overlooking the obvious than me!).
Tokenizing and stemming are irrelevant in this case because your
type is "string", which is an untoken
The jars are named like *1.4.1* . So i suppose its the version 1.4.1
Thanks!
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> OK, what version of Solr are you using? I can take a quick check to see
> what behavior I get
>
> Erick
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ezequiel Calderar
OK, what version of Solr are you using? I can take a quick check to see
what behavior I get
Erick
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ezequiel Calderara wrote:
> I'll check the Tokenizer to see if that's the problem.
> The results of Analysis Page for "SectionName:Programas_Home"
> Query Analy
I'll check the Tokenizer to see if that's the problem.
The results of Analysis Page for "SectionName:Programas_Home"
Query Analyzer org.apache.solr.schema.FieldType$DefaultAnalyzer {} term
position 1 term text Programas_Home term type word source start,end 0,14
payload
So it's not having problem
Ezequiel:
Nice job of including relevant details, by the way. Unfortunately I'm
puzzled too. Your SectionName is a "string" type, so it should
be placed in the index as-is. Be a bit cautious about looking at
returned results (as I see in one of your xml files) because the returned
values are the v
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 2:00 PM, Aleksey Gogolev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I made this query:
> http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=suggestion:ipod+nano+80*
Note that in Lucene syntax, this query is equivalent to
suggestion:ipod default_field:nano default_field:80*
For debugging, add debugQue
18 matches
Mail list logo
