Re: Stored field values don't update after 7 -> 8 upgrade

I did some more troubleshooting on this issue, and can reproduce it in isolation. Also, I found that the issue doesn't occur when upgrading from 7.5 to 7.7.2. So to summarize: - upgrade from 7.5 to 8.1 and after that any modifications to stored fields in the documents are not updated. - upgrade

Stored field values don't update after 7 -> 8 upgrade

Hi All, We have a collection that was created on Solr 7.5, and then Solr was upgraded to 8.1 . After the upgrade, we're seeing that the stored values of the fields of documents that existed before the upgrade aren't being stored when the record is updated, even though the indexed value is. For ex

Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Solr not returning stored field

something makes no sense. Go back to the very beginning. I >>> was using an out of date configuration file which pointed SolrJ to another >>> running Solr that had a core similar enough to the one running on localhost >>> that I could not see an issue... until I checked

Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Solr not returning stored field

ng. > > > > > > All is good. > > > > > > -S > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Steve Pruitt > > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:46 PM > > > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > > S

Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Solr not returning stored field

ost > that I could not see an issue... until I checked everything. > > > > All is good. > > > > -S > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Steve Pruitt > > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:46 PM > > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > S

Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Solr not returning stored field

gt; All is good. > > -S > > -Original Message- > From: Steve Pruitt > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:46 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Solr not returning stored field > > Ok, I am totally confused. > > It works fine us

RE: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Solr not returning stored field

. -S -Original Message- From: Steve Pruitt Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:46 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Solr not returning stored field Ok, I am totally confused. It works fine using Solr Admin console on some test cases. I set the fl box with

RE: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Solr not returning stored field

1:44 PM To: solr-user Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Re: Solr not returning stored field (If no other SolrJ specific advice shows up) Can you divide the problem in a middle a see what happens and whether the issue is Solr or SolrJ side. Specifically, execute the query directly against Solr and see

Re: Solr not returning stored field

actually have the field. Sometimes not all documents do and the query returns those wirhout first. Cross check by getting returned IDs and looking up the full record directly in Solr. Regards, Alex On Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 1:37 PM Steve Pruitt, wrote: > I cannot get Solr to return a stored fi

Solr not returning stored field

I cannot get Solr to return a stored field. My schema is: : : I am using the SolrJ client and trying this: The query string contains = " user: " and a list of user field values; The query executes ok. I get several documents. SolrQuery solrQuery = new SolrQuery(query); solrQue

Re: CSVResponseWriter doesnt return non-stored field even when docValues is enabled

OK, I missed the bit about "...no explicit fl was specified..." Please raise a JIRA. Also, make sure you highlight the bit about no fl list specified. Patches welcome of course! Best, Erick On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Ganesh Sethuraman wrote: > Yes, i have the same problem too. DocValues=

Re: CSVResponseWriter doesnt return non-stored field even when docValues is enabled

Yes, i have the same problem too. DocValues=True and Stored as false does not come out in CSV. It works fine in JSON format. On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:37 PM, Karthikeyan Shanmugasundaram < ksundaram...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yea i just tried again and below is the info, > > - Solr/Lucene Version

Re: CSVResponseWriter doesnt return non-stored field even when docValues is enabled

Yea i just tried again and below is the info, - Solr/Lucene Version : 7.2.1 - Created collection with below fields - Added few documents contentid,testint,testlong id,1,56 id2,2,66 - http://machine:port/solr/testdocvalue/select?q=*:*&wt=json

Re: CSVResponseWriter doesnt return non-stored field even when docValues is enabled

Do you have any evidence that this doesn't work? Because when I tried it just now it works fine. This was on master. Best, Erick On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Karthikeyan Shanmugasundaram wrote: > Hi, > > As part of this Jira, > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2970?attachmentSort

CSVResponseWriter doesnt return non-stored field even when docValues is enabled

Hi, As part of this Jira, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2970?attachmentSortBy=fileName CSVResponseWriter doesnt return fields whose stored attribute set to false, but looks docvalues is not considered. Whereas it is not same for response writer like json/xml ie., fields with only do

Splitting large non-stored field

hting. Also, the UI team cannot implement the "paging" of this field in their side because their server cannot manage user sessions and should remain stateless. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Splitting-large-non-stored-field-tp4317570.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Problems with stored/not-stored field filter queries

On 1/24/2017 6:15 PM, Stanislav Sandalnikov wrote: > Thanks a lot for your valuable input. Of course you were right, the > data was changed after reindex step, I completely forgot that > categories are done by separate application and this application was > pushing empty IndexDate field after updat

Re: Problems with stored/not-stored field filter queries

bq: By the way is there any way to see if there is a index for some particular field of a document? not really conveniently. To know that you have to unwind the inverted index. The "luke" program can do this. Of course if the field is _stored_ it's easy, just return q=id:doc_id&fl=* Also note th

Re: Problems with stored/not-stored field filter queries

Thanks Mikhail, didn’t know about debugQuery and explainOther, could be useful. Regarding $q, you can find this information here - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Function+Queries#FunctionQueries-AvailableFunctions

Re: Problems with stored/not-stored field filter queries

Hi Shawn, Thanks a lot for your valuable input. Of course you were right, the data was changed after reindex step, I completely forgot that categories are done by separate application and this application was pushing empty IndexDate field after update, because it couldn’t extract a value from

Re: Problems with stored/not-stored field filter queries

Hello Stanislav, Stored fields have nothing which findability, I believe. Usually debugQuery and explainOther is a right way to get what's going on there. What is $q ? How it's supposed to work? 24 янв. 2017 г. 18:29 пользователь "Stanislav Sandalnikov" < s.sandalni...@gmail.com> написал: > Hi ev

Re: Problems with stored/not-stored field filter queries

On 1/24/2017 8:29 AM, Stanislav Sandalnikov wrote: > With indexed but not stored IndexDate field: > > 1) With this query everything works fine, I’m getting the results back: > /select?fl=taskid,docid,score&q=*:*&fq=category:"Security")))+AND+(datasource:(sites)))&fq={!frange+l%3D0}query($q)&sor

Problems with stored/not-stored field filter queries

Hi everyone, I’m facing strange Solr behavior, which could be better described in examples: With indexed but not stored IndexDate field: 1) With this query everything works fine, I’m getting the results back: /select?fl=taskid,docid,score&q=*:*&fq=category:"Security")))+AND+(datasource:(sit

Re: limit stored field size

Highlighter requires indexing for sure) and > it used only indexed fields, but I'll retry. > > -Original Message- > From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:34 AM > To: solr-user > Subject: Re: limit stored field size >

RE: limit stored field size

t: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:34 AM To: solr-user Subject: Re: limit stored field size I'm not getting through. You do _not_ need to have a field indexed to highlight. They can (optionally) just be stored and re-analyzed just before being returned. Especially with 50 character fields to be high

Re: limit stored field size

, so the truncated field should be > indexed and stored. I would like to avoid the double indexed fields. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/limit-stored-field-size-tp4284356p4284427.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: limit stored field size

/limit-stored-field-size-tp4284356p4284427.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: limit stored field size

t the > stored fields takes too much disk space and I want to reduce it. > Is there a way to truncate or limit field length only for storing? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/limit-stored-field-size-tp4284356p4284362.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: limit stored field size

t highlighting. My problem is that the stored fields takes too much disk space and I want to reduce it. Is there a way to truncate or limit field length only for storing? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/limit-stored-field-size-tp4284356p4284362.html Sent

Re: limit stored field size

ields, which is redundant. My goal is to > decrease index size. Is there a way to limit the stored size within one > field without creating copy field? > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/limit-stored-field-size-tp4284356.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

limit stored field size

ch is redundant. My goal is to decrease index size. Is there a way to limit the stored size within one field without creating copy field? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/limit-stored-field-size-tp4284356.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archi

Re: Removing a stored field from solrcloud 4.4

Yes and no. Solr should continue to work fine, just all new documents won't have the stored field to return to the clients. As you re-index docs, subsequent merges will purge the stored data _for the docs you've re-indexed_. But I would re-index just to get my system in a consistent st

Removing a stored field from solrcloud 4.4

Hello, I have a field which is indexed and stored in the solr schema( 4.4.solr cloud).This field is relatively huge and I plan to only index the field and not to store.Is there a need to re-index the documents once this change is made?. Thanks, Nishanth

enabling termVectors for a stored field/MoreLikeThis

Hello, I'm currently using Solr's MoreLikeThis functionality. It's working, but slow. I've read that "for best results, use stored TermVectors in schema.xml" (https://wiki.apache.org/solr/MoreLikeThis). Can anyone tell me what other steps I need to perform to enable term vector storage, othe

Re: Shared Stored Field

od practice. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351p4130589.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Shared Stored Field

ime. This is your > suggestions correct? > > So each document has on average 8 of these dynamic fields, while over the > whole index we have unlimited of these fields. What would this mean for the > performance? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351p4130411.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Shared Stored Field

, while over the whole index we have unlimited of these fields. What would this mean for the performance? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351p4130411.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Shared Stored Field

like 8). In that case we should add a > boost field for each of the values in the document, in general we would get > unlimited amount of dynamic fields in the index. > > But it is possible to select a different boost field depending on the > current filter query? > > > > -

Re: Shared Stored Field

ent boost field depending on the current filter query? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351p4130399.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Shared Stored Field

different way to influence the relevance depending on the > current search context? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Shared Stored Field

context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Shared-Stored-Field-tp4130351.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Order of values in stored field

M, Jamie Johnson wrote: > > Is there any guarantee in Solr/Lucene for the order of values in a stored > > field? > > Yes, order is preserved. > > -Yonik > http://heliosearch.org -- off-heap filters for solr >

Re: Order of values in stored field

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote: > Is there any guarantee in Solr/Lucene for the order of values in a stored > field? Yes, order is preserved. -Yonik http://heliosearch.org -- off-heap filters for solr

Order of values in stored field

Is there any guarantee in Solr/Lucene for the order of values in a stored field? For instance if we did the following document.addField("text", "value 1"); document.addField("text", "value 2"); document.addField("text", "value 3");

Re: Stored Field Compression for Solr 4.4

On 8/1/2013 8:31 AM, Kuchekar wrote: > Hi, > > Are there any changes in Solr 4.4 version in regards to Stored fields > compression, compared to Solr 4.1. > > My understanding is that Solr 4.1 by default provides compression of stored > fields compared to Solr 4.0 and its earlier versions.

Stored Field Compression for Solr 4.4

Hi, Are there any changes in Solr 4.4 version in regards to Stored fields compression, compared to Solr 4.1. My understanding is that Solr 4.1 by default provides compression of stored fields compared to Solr 4.0 and its earlier versions. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. Th

Re: Question on implementation for schema design - parsing path information into stored field

Thank you Brendan, I had started to read about the tokenizers and couldn't quite piece together how it would work. I will read about this and post my implementation if successful. Cord On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Brendan Grainger < brendan.grain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Cord, > > I thin

Re: Question on implementation for schema design - parsing path information into stored field

Hi Cord, I think you'd do it like this: 1. Add this to schema.xml 2. When you index add the 'folders' to the folders_facet field (or whatever you want to call it). 3. Your query would look something like: http://localhost:8982/solr/ /s

Question on implementation for schema design - parsing path information into stored field

Hello, I am submitting rich documents to a SOLR index via Solr Cell. This is all working well. The documents are organized in meaningful folders. I would like to capture the folder names in my index so that I can use the folder names to provide facets. I can pass the path data into the indexi

Re: Use a boolean field as a flag for another, just stored, field

ssage in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Use-a-boolean-field-as-a-flag-for-another-just-stored-field-tp4006484p4006727.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Use a boolean field as a flag for another, just stored, field

: Exactly, and the question is how to populate at index time a boolean field : based on the content of another one ? : My initial idea was to make a copy of the initial field - and 'filter' it : to a boolean value (by specifying some analyzer in schema.xml) - but , as I : said, I might miss some

Re: Use a boolean field as a flag for another, just stored, field

some basic Solr ideas. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Use-a-boolean-field-as-a-flag-for-another-just-stored-field-tp4006484p4006541.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Use a boolean field as a flag for another, just stored, field

wrote: > Well - this was the idea: not to index the useless data from the initial > field but to add and index another field, a boolean one, based on the > content of the first one. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Use-a-boolea

Re: Use a boolean field as a flag for another, just stored, field

Well - this was the idea: not to index the useless data from the initial field but to add and index another field, a boolean one, based on the content of the first one. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Use-a-boolean-field-as-a-flag-for-another-just-stored

Re: Use a boolean field as a flag for another, just stored, field

w this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Use-a-boolean-field-as-a-flag-for-another-just-stored-field-tp4006484.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Use a boolean field as a flag for another, just stored, field

available in Solr or if I completely missed some point. Regards, Alex -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Use-a-boolean-field-as-a-flag-for-another-just-stored-field-tp4006484.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Sorting on non-stored field

it should be indexed by not analyzed. it don't need stored. reading field values from stored fields is extremely slow. So lucene will use StringIndex to read fields for sort. so if you want to sort by some field, you should index this field and don't analyze it. On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Fi

Re: Sorting on non-stored field

Am 14.03.2012 11:43, schrieb Finotti Simone: I was wondering: is it possible to sort a Solr result-set on a non-stored value? Yes, it is. It must be indexed, indeed. -Kuli

Sorting on non-stored field

I was wondering: is it possible to sort a Solr result-set on a non-stored value? Thank you

Re: Stored Field

7;re copying more bytes. Best Erick On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 7:36 AM, lee carroll wrote: > Hi > Do Stored field values get added to the index for each document field > combination literally or is a pointer used ? > I've been reading http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/fileformats.p

Stored Field

Hi Do Stored field values get added to the index for each document field combination literally or is a pointer used ? I've been reading http://lucene.apache.org/java/2_4_0/fileformats.pdf and I think thats the case but not 100% so thought I'd ask. In logical terms for stored fields do w

Re: Stored field value modification

2010/12/6 Ahmet Arslan : > > If you are already using DIH, > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DataImportHandler#HTMLStripTransformer can do > what you want. Indeed it can. Many thanks.

Re: Stored field value modification

> - I have zero control over what is stored in the database > - using the Solr XML update protocol i could probably > transform the > data before sending it > - ... but I'd much rather continue using DataImportHandler > to access > the database If you are already using DIH, http://wiki.apache.or

Re: Stored field value modification

Hi, You can create a custom update request processor [1] to strip unwanted input as it is about to enter the index. [1]: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateRequestProcessor Cheers, On Monday 06 December 2010 17:36:09 Emmanuel Bégué wrote: > Hello, > > Is it possible to manipulate the value of

Stored field value modification

Hello, Is it possible to manipulate the value of a field before it is stored? I'm indexing a database where some field contain raw HTML, including named character entities. Using solr.HTMLStripCharFilterFactory on the index analyzer, results in this HTML being correctly stripped, and named chara

Re: query on not stored field

On Feb 1, 2010, at 8:45 PM, Matthieu Labour wrote: What about a field that is both indexed="false" stored="false" ... does it have an impact into solr meaning is it being ignored by solr/ lucene? is it like the field was not being passed? Yes, that's a trick in Solr to ignore a field. The e

Re: query on not stored field

Erik Hatcher wrote: From: Erik Hatcher Subject: Re: query on not stored field To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Date: Monday, February 1, 2010, 6:32 PM First of all, the schema snippets you provided aren't right.  It's indexed="true", not index="analyzed".  And it&

Re: query on not stored field

First of all, the schema snippets you provided aren't right. It's indexed="true", not index="analyzed". And it's stored, not store. But, to answer your question, the stored nature of the field has nothing whatsoever to do with it's searchability. Stored only affects whether you can get t

Re: query on not stored field

Both index="analyzed" and store="yes" are not parsed by Solr schema. Use indexed and stored instead of index and store, and set either "true" or "false". Koji -- http://www.rondhuit.com/en/

query on not stored field

Hi on the following field [...] [...] the following query works {!lucene q.op=AND} [...] AND (status.message&STRING_ANALYZED_NO_US:(some keywords) AND [...] I was wondering If the query syntax above works as well if the store property of the field is set to NO. [...] [...] I ha

Re: Modifying a stored field after analyzing it?

markrmiller wrote: > > Yonik's patch makes it so that you can supply the TokenStream straight to > the field and still store an *independent* text value in a stored field. > When building the Lucene Document, when adding the field, you would add > the > raw TokenStream a

Re: Modifying a stored field after analyzing it?

> one two three four [MARKER] oneprime twoprime threeprime fourprime > > essentially needs the first part stripped for indexing, and the second part > stripped for storing. Once Yonik's patch goes live, how would I tell my > tokenizer to behave differently for the stored for

Re: Modifying a stored field after analyzing it?

tell my tokenizer to behave differently for the stored form vs the indexed form? I'm sure I'm missing something; sorry for the confusion. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Modifying-a-stored-field-after-analyzing-it--tp24426623p24429917.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Modifying a stored field after analyzing it?

> Also, any idea if "soon" means in the Solr 1.4 release? Dunno - but I think so. If all it needs is the Lucene update, than def - and I think you can prob do it with just that. But there may still be a gotchya to resolve on the Solr end - I'm not 100% at the moment. > >

Re: Modifying a stored field after analyzing it?

release? Thanks for the heads up! -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Modifying-a-stored-field-after-analyzing-it--tp24426623p24428208.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Modifying a stored field after analyzing it?

> > Is there some clever way that I'm missing to build my token stream outside > of Solr, and store just the original text and index my token stream? > > Coming soon. First step was here: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1699 Trunk doesn't have that version of Lucene yet though (I believ

Re: Modifying a stored field after analyzing it?

I have looked at the Highlighter code some and I see that it gets fragments from all fields... so maybe there's something more complicated going on that will cause it to correctly return one two three four from f2? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Modifying-a-stored

Re: Modifying a stored field after analyzing it?

ey get back a > highlighted > result like > > one two three ... > > This is great and serves my needs, but I hate that I'm storing all that > METAINFO uselessly (there's actually a good deal more than in this > simplified example). After I've used it to ma

Modifying a stored field after analyzing it?

that I'm storing all that METAINFO uselessly (there's actually a good deal more than in this simplified example). After I've used it to make my tokens, I'd really like to convert the stored field to just one two three four and store that. I thought about using an Update

Re: Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Andrew Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nope - I made the schema change and then indexed all of my content. > > I can confirm that the URL string is included, cause when I change my schema > back to have both stored and indexed, it shows the URL data in the search

Re: Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field

OTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:41 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Andrew Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Sorry for the late follow-up. I am doin

RE: Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field

. Andrew From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 1:41 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:47 AM

Re: Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Andrew Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for the late follow-up. I am doing this, but get nothing back. Did you change the field to "stored" in the schema after you added the document? I've never seen anyone having this problem, so perhaps verify that you ar

RE: Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field

-indexed but stored field On Oct 14, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Andrew Nagy wrote: > Hello - I have the following field: > > multiValued="true"/> > > However, when I do a search, the url field does not display. Does > the field also need to be indexed in order to retrieve th

RE: Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field

-indexed but stored field On Oct 14, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Andrew Nagy wrote: > Hello - I have the following field: > > multiValued="true"/> > > However, when I do a search, the url field does not display. Does > the field also need to be indexed in order to retrieve th

Re: Stored field question

indexed="true" >>> stored="false" /> >>>>> indexed="true" >>> stored="false" /> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yonik Seeley wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> I have a field with the following definition... >>>>> >>>>> >>>> stored="false" multiValued="true"/> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not storing the data because I never need to retrieve it but each >>>>> *_t_ns_mv field is indexed and has a specific boost value... I added >>>>> this field with the word "test" as the value but when I search for >>>>> "test" no results come up in my unstored field unless I put the word >>>>> "test" in a field that is stored. >>>>> >>>>> Do I have a misunderstanding of how to use stored/unstored fields? Can >>>>> someone help me clarify it? >>>> >>>> You should be able to search on a field that is indexed but not stored >>>> (otherwise there would be no point to indexed but not stored). Are >>>> you sure you issued a commit after you added the document? Are you >>>> sure you are searching that specific field? Searches are field >>>> specific and do not cover all fields. >>>> >>>> -Yonik >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://www.nabble.com/Stored-field-question-tp19843705p19854225.html >>> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Stored-field-question-tp19843705p20034082.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field

On Oct 14, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Andrew Nagy wrote: Hello - I have the following field: multiValued="true"/> However, when I do a search, the url field does not display. Does the field also need to be indexed in order to retrieve the data? No... but it does need to be requested, either as

Retrieving a non-indexed but stored field

Hello - I have the following field: However, when I do a search, the url field does not display. Does the field also need to be indexed in order to retrieve the data? Thanks Andrew

Re: Stored field question

IL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> I have a field with the following definition... >>>> >>>> >>> stored="false" multiValued="true"/> >>>> >>>> I'm not storing the data because I never need to retrieve it bu

Re: Stored field question

... I added >>> this field with the word "test" as the value but when I search for >>> "test" no results come up in my unstored field unless I put the word >>> "test" in a field that is stored. >>> >>> Do I have a misunderstanding of how to use stored/unstored fields? Can >>> someone help me clarify it? >> >> You should be able to search on a field that is indexed but not stored >> (otherwise there would be no point to indexed but not stored). Are >> you sure you issued a commit after you added the document? Are you >> sure you are searching that specific field? Searches are field >> specific and do not cover all fields. >> >> -Yonik >> >> > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Stored-field-question-tp19843705p19854225.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Re: Stored field question

d a commit after you added the document? Are you > sure you are searching that specific field? Searches are field > specific and do not cover all fields. > > -Yonik > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Stored-field-question-tp19843705p19854225.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Stored field question

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a field with the following definition... > > stored="false" multiValued="true"/> > > I'm not storing the data because I never need to retrieve it but each > *_t_ns_mv field is indexed and has a specific boost value... I

Stored field question

Hello, I have a field with the following definition... I'm not storing the data because I never need to retrieve it but each *_t_ns_mv field is indexed and has a specific boost value... I added this field with the word "test" as the value but when I search for "test" no results come up in my un

Re: Problems with Stored Field

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:40:44 -0300 "Hugo Barauna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am having problems with a stored field. The problem is that field is not > being stored as I need it to be. It has a tokenizer > class="solr.HTMLStripWhitespaceTokenizerFactory&q

Problems with Stored Field

Hi Folks, I am having problems with a stored field. The problem is that field is not being stored as I need it to be. It has a tokenizer class="solr.HTMLStripWhitespaceTokenizerFactory", but when it is stored, that tokenizer is not applied. That tokenizer is only applied for the inverte

Re: solr, snippets and stored field in nutch...

seems like much more efficient way of presenting summaries or snippets (of course for apps that need these only) than using a stored field which is only option in solr - not only resulting in a huge index size but reducing speed of retrieval because of this increase in size (this is admittedly a

Re: solr, snippets and stored field in nutch...

efficient way of presenting summaries or snippets (of course for apps that need these only) than using a stored field which is only option in solr - not only resulting in a huge index size but reducing speed of retrieval because of this increase in size (this is admittedly a guess, would like to

Re: solr, snippets and stored field in nutch...

(of course for apps that need these only) than using a stored field which is only option in solr - not only resulting in a huge index size but reducing speed of retrieval because of this increase in size (this is admittedly a guess, would like to know if not the case). Also for queries only

Re: solr, snippets and stored field in nutch...

PROTECTED]> Date: Oct 11, 2007 11:27 PM Subject: Re: snippets and stored field in nutch... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The reason it is stored in the segments instead of index to allow summarizers to be run on the content of hits to produce the summaries that appear in the search results. Summa

Fwd: solr, snippets and stored field in nutch...

- Forwarded message -- From: Dennis Kubes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Oct 11, 2007 11:27 PM Subject: Re: snippets and stored field in nutch... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The reason it is stored in the segments instead of index to allow summarizers to be run on the content of hits to produ

  1   2   >