least in multi-shard collections. See also:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8362
Quick clarification, you say "non Docvalued String Field" ... I'm assuming
you're talking about "StrField", not "TextField".
wrt performance difference, I'm w
I am wondering that the performance of facet of DocValued SortableText
Field is slower than non Docvalued String Field.
Does anyone know why?
Thanks,
Jae
In a word, “no”. The string type is intentionally primitive, no analysis/case
changing is done at all.
You say “you cannot reindex the data”. Why not? Just due to time constraints or
is the original data no longer available?
If all the fields are stored, you can pull the docs from the collectio
Hi,
We missed the fact that case insensitive search doesn't work with
field type "string". We have 3B docs indexed and we cannot reindex the data.
Now, as schema changes require reindexing, is there any other way to
achieve case insensitive search on string fields?
Regards,
Anshuman
Thanks Erick for this last confirmation. I've at the end I've used the
standard "text_ws":
And the field
On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:54 AM Erick Erickson
wrote:
> bq. What I do not understand is what happens to the Analyzers, Tokenizers,
> and
> Filters in the i
bq. What I do not understand is what happens to the Analyzers, Tokenizers, and
Filters in the indexing chain
They are irrelevant. The analysis chain is only executed when indexed=true.
Best,
Erick
> On Sep 5, 2019, at 9:03 AM, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
>
> What I do not understand is what happe
e wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > sorry for the silly question, I need to store in Solr a string field
> larger
> > than 32k (index="false").
> >
> > Given that storing field larger than 32k rises an exception:
> > "DocValuesField "filterQuery&quo
> >
> > sorry for the silly question, I need to store in Solr a string field
> larger
> > than 32k (index="false").
> >
> > Given that storing field larger than 32k rises an exception:
> > "DocValuesField "filterQuery" is t
Use a text field with stored=true and indexed=false? That'll allow you to
return it...
On Thu, Sep 5, 2019, 07:04 Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> sorry for the silly question, I need to store in Solr a string field larger
> than 32k (index="false").
>
Hi all,
sorry for the silly question, I need to store in Solr a string field larger
than 32k (index="false").
Given that storing field larger than 32k rises an exception:
"DocValuesField "filterQuery" is too large, must be <= 32766", I thought to
use predefin
lighting":{
"QQBBLX":{
"ResourceCorrespondent":[]},
"QQBCLN":{
"ResourceCorrespondent":[]},
"QQBCLM":{
"ResourceCorrespondent":[]},
*** Closer but still no useful values
**
, 4:59 AM Marek Tichy, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having troubles with the filter query on a multiple string field,
> specifically with a space between words. Looking at the histogram and
> values using Solr UI it correctly shows that the indexing stores the
> string "Key cas
Hi,
I'm having troubles with the filter query on a multiple string field,
specifically with a space between words. Looking at the histogram and
values using Solr UI it correctly shows that the indexing stores the
string "Key case" as it should. However the following filt
cct1 | asset1 | 20
> > > > > 2| Acct1 | asset2 | 30
> > > > > 3| Acct2 | asset3 | 10
> > > > > 4| Acct3 | asset2 | 10
> > > > >
> > > > > So we planned to change as
> > > > >
> > > > > Id | Accts
t; Id | Accts | asset_s
> > > > 1 | Acct1 | [{"asset1": "20", "asset2":"30"}]
> > > > 2 | Acct2 | [{"asset3": "10"}]
> > > > 3 | Acct3 | [{"asset2": "10"}]
> > > >
&g
On 9/27/2018 8:53 AM, Balanathagiri Ayyasamypalanivel wrote:
Thanks Shawn for your prompt response.
Actually we have to filter on the query time while calculate the score.
The challenge here is we should not add the asset and put as static field
in the index time. The asset needs to be calculate
;}]
> > > 3 | Acct3 | [{"asset2": "10"}]
> > >
> > > But only draw back here is we have to parse the json to do the sum of
> the
> > > values, is there any other way to handle this scenario.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > B
Thanks Shawn for your prompt response.
Actually we have to filter on the query time while calculate the score.
The challenge here is we should not add the asset and put as static field
in the index time. The asset needs to be calculated while query time with
some filters.
Regards,
Bala.
On Thu,
On 9/26/2018 12:46 PM, Balanathagiri Ayyasamypalanivel wrote:
But only draw back here is we have to parse the json to do the sum of the
values, is there any other way to handle this scenario.
Solr cannot do that for you. You could put this in your indexing
software -- add up the numbers and p
to parse the json to do the sum of the
> > values, is there any other way to handle this scenario.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bala.
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 2:25 PM Shawn Heisey wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/26/2018 12:20 PM, Balanathagiri Ayyasamyp
draw back here is we have to parse the json to do the sum of the
> values, is there any other way to handle this scenario.
>
> Regards,
> Bala.
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 2:25 PM Shawn Heisey wrote:
>
>> On 9/26/2018 12:20 PM, Balanathagiri Ayyasamypalanivel wrote:
>
| Acct3 | [{"asset2": "10"}]
But only draw back here is we have to parse the json to do the sum of the
values, is there any other way to handle this scenario.
Regards,
Bala.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 2:25 PM Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 9/26/2018 12:20 PM, Balanathagiri Ayyasamypal
On 9/26/2018 12:20 PM, Balanathagiri Ayyasamypalanivel wrote:
Currently I am storing json object type of values in string field in solr.
Using this field, in the code I am parsing json objects and doing sum of
the values under it.
In solr, do we have any option in doing it by default when using
Hi,
Currently I am storing json object type of values in string field in solr.
Using this field, in the code I am parsing json objects and doing sum of
the values under it.
In solr, do we have any option in doing it by default when using the json
object field values.
Regards,
Bala.
f there isn't one already
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018, 19:49 Karthik Ramachandran <
> kramachand...@commvault.com> wrote:
>
> > We are using Solr 7.2.1, highlighting is not working with docValues only
> > String field.
> >
> > Should I open a JIRA
re using Solr 7.2.1, highlighting is not working with docValues only
> String field.
>
> Should I open a JIRA for this?
>
> Schema:
>
> id
>
>required="true"/>
>stored="true"/>
>stored="false"/>
>
>
>
&g
We are using Solr 7.2.1, highlighting is not working with docValues only String
field.
Should I open a JIRA for this?
Schema:
id
Data:
[{"id":1,"name":"Testing line 1"},{"id":2,"name":"Testing line
2"},{"i
suppose I want to search the "l(i|a)*on k(i|e)*ng". there is a space between
two words. I want solr to retrieve the exact match that these two words or
their other cases are adjacent. If I want to use text field type, each one
of these words are considered as tokens, so solr may bring back other
re
Are you sure Solr is the right tool for you? Regexp searches is the really
last resort approach in the domain.
I suggest that maybe you rethink your actual business case (share it here)
to benefiy from tokenization or look if other tools are better.
As it is, you are using a drill to hammer nails
Thanks Alexandre and Erick. Erick I want to use my regular expression to
search a field and Solr text field token the document, so the regular
expression result will not be valid. I want Solr not to token my doc,
although I will lose some terms using solr string.
--
Sent from: http://lucene.4720
Regards,
> Alex
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 12:44 AM Zahra Aminolroaya,
> wrote:
>
>> I want to truncate my string field type due to its number of bytes limit. I
>> wrote the following in my schema:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
&
Did you look into UpdateRequestProcessors?
There is a truncate one there.
Regards,
Alex
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 12:44 AM Zahra Aminolroaya,
wrote:
> I want to truncate my string field type due to its number of bytes limit. I
> wrote the following in my
I want to truncate my string field type due to its number of bytes limit. I
wrote the following in my schema:
However, I found that StrField (string) does not support specifying an
analyzer. Besides, prefixLength in TruncateTokenFilterFactory could
ems to extend beyond hll/unique... I tried min(string_s) and
> got wonky results as well.
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Volodymyr Rudniev
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've encountered 2 issues while trying to apply unique()/hll()
rying to apply unique()/hll() function to a
> string field inside a range facet:
>
> Results are incorrect for a single-valued string field.
> I’m getting ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException for a multi-valued string field.
>
>
> How to reproduce:
>
> Create a core based on th
Hello,
I've encountered 2 issues while trying to apply unique()/hll() function to
a string field inside a range facet:
1. Results are incorrect for a single-valued string field.
2. I’m getting ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException for a multi-valued string
field.
How to reproduce:
Hi Emir,
Thanks for your advice. This works.
Regards,
Edwin
On 1 November 2017 at 18:08, Emir Arnautović
wrote:
> Hi,
> You can use KeywordTokenizer and LowerCaseTokenFilterFactory.
>
> HTH,
> Emir
> --
> Monitoring - Log Management - Alerting - Anomaly Detection
> Solr & Elasticsearch Consul
Hi,
You can use KeywordTokenizer and LowerCaseTokenFilterFactory.
HTH,
Emir
--
Monitoring - Log Management - Alerting - Anomaly Detection
Solr & Elasticsearch Consulting Support Training - http://sematext.com/
> On 1 Nov 2017, at 09:50, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Would like to fi
Hi,
Would like to find out, what is the best way to lower-case a String index
in Solr, to make it case insensitive, while preserving the structure of the
string (ie It should not break into different tokens at space, and should
not remove any characters or symbols)
I found that solr.StrField does
On 1/13/2017 7:36 AM, Sebastian Riemer wrote:
> Thanks, that's actually where I come from. But I don't want to exclude values
> leading to a count of zero.
>
> Background to this: A user searched for mediaType "book" which gave him 10
> results. Now some other task/routine whatever changes all th
Thanks @Toke, for pointing out these options. I'll have a read about
expungeDeletes.
Sounds even more so, that having solr filter out 0-counts is a good idea and I
should handle my use-case outside of solr.
Thanks again,
Sebastian
On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 14:19 +, Sebastian Riemer wrote:
>
rüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Michael Kuhlmann [mailto:k...@solr.info]
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Januar 2017 15:43
An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Re: FacetField-Result on String-Field contains value with count 0?
Then I don't understand your problem. Solr already does exactly what you w
On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 14:19 +, Sebastian Riemer wrote:
> the second search should have been this: http://localhost:8983/solr/w
> emi/select?fq=m_mediaType_s:%221%22&indent=on&q=*:*&rows=0&start=0&wt
> =json
> (or in other words, give me all documents having value "1" for field
> "m_mediaType_s
ail.com [mailto:billnb...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Januar 2017 15:23
> An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: FacetField-Result on String-Field contains value with count
> 0?
>
> Set mincount to 1
>
> Bill Bell
> Sent from mobile
>
>
>&
-
Von: billnb...@gmail.com [mailto:billnb...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Januar 2017 15:23
An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Re: AW: FacetField-Result on String-Field contains value with count 0?
Set mincount to 1
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 7:19 AM, Seba
Set mincount to 1
Bill Bell
Sent from mobile
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 7:19 AM, Sebastian Riemer wrote:
>
> Pardon me,
> the second search should have been this:
> http://localhost:8983/solr/wemi/select?fq=m_mediaType_s:%221%22&indent=on&q=*:*&rows=0&start=0&wt=json
>
> (or in other words, giv
Pardon me,
the second search should have been this:
http://localhost:8983/solr/wemi/select?fq=m_mediaType_s:%221%22&indent=on&q=*:*&rows=0&start=0&wt=json
(or in other words, give me all documents having value "1" for field
"m_mediaType_s")
Since this search gives zero results, why is it incl
Hi,
Please help me understand:
http://localhost:8983/solr/wemi/select?facet.field=m_mediaType_s&facet=on&indent=on&q=*:*&wt=json
returns:
"facet_counts":{
"facet_queries":{},
"facet_fields":{
"m_mediaType_s":[
"2",25561,
"3",19027,
"10",1966,
"11",1
Hi,
Would like to check, will the index size for fields which has been defined
as String be generally smaller than fields which has been defined as a Text
Field (Eg: KeywordTokenizerFactory)?
Assuming that both of them contains the same value in the fields, and there
is no additional filters for
Can somebody confirm whether the jira SOLR-8096 will affect json facet
also as I see sub faceting using term facet on string field is ruuning 5x
slower than on integer field for same number of hits and unique terms.
On 17-May-2016 3:33 pm, "Vijay Tiwary" wrote:
> Below i
Hello all,
I have an index of 8 shards having 1 replica each distubuted across 8 node
solr cloud . Size of index is 300 gb having 30 million documents. Solr json
facet runs extremly slow if I am sub faceting on string field even if
tnumfound is only around 2 (also I am not returning any rows
Hello.
I have a question regarding to "string" type field.
[ Symptom ]
When a string value including carriage return line feed (\r\n)
and passed that over to a string field, it is stored, however,
when I query that document and see the value of the field,
carriage return is strippe
Thanks steve. Workaround 2 is working fine.
Thanks again.
--sreenivasa kallu
-Original Message-
From: Steve Rowe [mailto:sar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 6:03 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to convert string field to date
Try workaround 2, I did
g * in the dynamic field name.
>
> I can see similar problems in workaround 2.
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> Advanced Thanks.
> --sreenivasa kallu
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Rowe [mailto:sar...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 1:
vasa kallu
-Original Message-
From: Steve Rowe [mailto:sar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 1:17 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to convert string field to date
Hi Sreenivasa,
This is a known bug:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/u
Hi Sreenivasa,
This is a known bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8607
(though the problem is not just about catch-all fields as the issue currently
indicates - all dynamic fields are affected)
Two workarounds (neither tested):
1. Add attr_date via add-dynamic-field instead of add
Hi,
I am new to solr.
I am using managed-schema. I am not using schema.xml. I am indexing outlook
email messages.
I can see only see three fields ( id,_version_,_text_) defined in
managed-schema. Remaining fields are
handled by following dynamic field
I have field name attr_date with t
r 2015 at 21:04, Upayavira wrote:
>
> > That is, use a TextField plus a KeywordTokenizerFactory, rather than a
> > StringField
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 09:03 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> > > If you want to analyse a string field, use the KeywordTokenizer - it
> >
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 09:03 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> > If you want to analyse a string field, use the KeywordTokenizer - it
> > just passes the whole field through as a single tokenizer.
> >
> > Does that get you there?
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 0
That is, use a TextField plus a KeywordTokenizerFactory, rather than a
StringField
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 09:03 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> If you want to analyse a string field, use the KeywordTokenizer - it
> just passes the whole field through as a single tokenizer.
>
> Does that g
If you want to analyse a string field, use the KeywordTokenizer - it
just passes the whole field through as a single tokenizer.
Does that get you there?
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 08:52 PM, Jie Gao wrote:
> I understand that i can configure "solr.PhoneticFilterFactory" for both
&
ase.
Term Component allows me to perform exactly matching and regex based fuzzy
matching from multi-valued field. However, the solr string field does not
allow to customise the default analyser. Is there any other way to
circumvent the problem?
thanks,
Jerry
On 16 September 2015 at 19:55, Upayavi
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015, at 06:37 PM, Jie Gao wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I want to query a list of terms indexed and stored in multivalued string
> field via Term Component. The term component can support exact matching
> and
> regex based fuzzy matching. However, Is any way i ca
Hi,
I want to query a list of terms indexed and stored in multivalued string
field via Term Component. The term component can support exact matching and
regex based fuzzy matching. However, Is any way i can configure scheme to
do phonetic matching/query?
Thanks,
Jerry
e 6 Plus features a 5.5-inch retina HD display, the A8 chip
> for faster processing and longer battery life, the M8 motion coprocessor to
> track speed, distance and elevation, and with an 8MP iSight camera, you can
> record 1080p HD Video at 60 FPS!}
>
>
>
>
> --
> View
ttery life, the M8 motion coprocessor to
track speed, distance and elevation, and with an 8MP iSight camera, you can
record 1080p HD Video at 60 FPS!}
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLRJ-Atomic-updates-of-String-field-tp4168809.html
Sent from the Solr - Us
longer battery life, the M8 motion coprocessor to
> track speed, distance and elevation, and with an 8MP iSight camera, you can
> record 1080p HD Video at 60 FPS!}
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLRJ-Atomic-update
in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLRJ-Atomic-updates-of-String-field-tp4168809.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
10:49 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Exact match on string field with special characters
I may have provided too much background story for my question. What I am trying
to do at the core here, is an exact match on a single field. I do this
programmatically by reading the field v
Shoot I just noticed the error in my original post which would certainly
cause confusion.
Instead of
query.addFacetField(fq);
I meant to write
query.setParam("fq", fg);
Sorry.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Exact-match-on-string-field-wi
replacing double quotes and backslashes. I don't
strip special chars because I'm using the facet values for display. This
problem may be specific to SolrJ. Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Exact-match-on-string-field-with-special-charact
ndex time,
but I'd like to avoid munging that data because I'm using the string field
for display too! That saves time/searches when aggregating against 10 - 15
fields which takes a whole lot of facet searches to begin with.
Using Solr 4.9
--
View this message in context:
http:/
ry, you can use
org.apache.solr.client.solrj.util.ClientUtils.escapeQueryChars().
-Michael
-Original Message-
From: tedsolr [mailto:tsm...@sciquest.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 5:33 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Exact match on string field with special characters
I am trying to do SQL like aggregation (GROU
having to resort to
the quotes? I could possibly convert spaces to underscores at index time,
but I'd like to avoid munging that data because I'm using the string field
for display too! That saves time/searches when aggregating against 10 - 15
fields which takes a whole lot of facet searche
Do a to a numeric field.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:35 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to summarize a String Field ?
You cannot do this as far as I know, it must be a numeric field
(float
You cannot do this as far as I know, it must be a numeric field
(float/int/tint/tfloat whatever).
Best
Erick
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:46 AM, YouPeng Yang
wrote:
> Hi
>
>One of my filed called AMOUNT is String,and I want to calculate the
> sum of the this filed.
> I have try it with
Hi
One of my filed called AMOUNT is String,and I want to calculate the
sum of the this filed.
I have try it with the stats component,it only give out the stats
information without sum item just as following:
5000
24230
26362
Is there
I think you can write a custom function query and use it on query time.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Typecast-non-stored-string-field-for-sorting-tp4132759p4132779.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I don't know of any way offhand to do this except to re-index. You
can't, for instance, say "copy from this indexed field to this other
indexed field".
Is it possible for you to re-index?
Best,
Erick
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:46 PM, abhishek jain
wrote:
> Hi friends,
> I have a field which is
Hi friends,
I have a field which is string which I created by mistake it should have
been int.
It is not stored just indexed.
I want to numerically sort it, and hence I want a function which can at
query convert to integer or double and then I can apply sort. Is it
possible?
If not then can I crea
Hi;
When you examine Solr example folder you can see that highlighting feature
works for String field. Here is the definition for cat field that is a type
of String:
if you run that from your browser:
http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=cat:*%20AND%20name:samsung&hl=true&a
Hi ALL,
I have recently build small search application using Apache solr. now I am
facing an issue.
Highlighting text feature is not working on "string" field type, But it
working on "text" field type.
when I search the content on string field type, the results are getting
eph O. wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am newbie to solr.
>>
>> I am trying out partial search (match). My experience is opposite of
>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/string-field-does-not-yield-exact-match-result-using-qf-parameter-td4060096.html
>>
ie to solr.
>
> I am trying out partial search (match). My experience is opposite of
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/string-field-does-not-yield-exact-match-result-using-qf-parameter-td4060096.html
>
> When I add 'qf' to to dismax query I get no result unless there's
Hello,
I am newbie to solr.
I am trying out partial search (match). My experience is opposite of
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/string-field-does-not-yield-exact-match-result-using-qf-parameter-td4060096.html
When I add 'qf' to to dismax query I get no result unless there's a
ist me on this.
>
> Thank you
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-string-field-stripping-new-lines-line-breaks-tp3984384p4071595.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
eaks to indexed document also line breaks.
My frontend app is SOLARIUM.
How can I appear line break the indexed data?
Please assist me on this.
Thank you
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-string-field-stripping-new-lines-line-breaks-tp3984384p4071595.
: I have a field declared as type string, so should it care whats inside the
string?
:
: Caused by: java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "1835-1910."
you haven't given us any information we can use to help you...
schema? high level error that wrapped that NFE? full stack trace of
I have a field declared as type string, so should it care whats inside the
string?
Caused by: java.lang.NumberFormatException: For input string: "1835-1910."
Thanks
-Peri
Hi,
You can try to increase the "pf" boost for your string field, I don't think
you'll have success in having it boosted with pf since it's a string? Check
explain output with &debugQuery=true and see whether you get a phrase boost.
--
Jan Høydahl, search so
Hi Jan
my question is when I tweak pf and qf parameter and the results change
slightly and I do not think for exact match you need to implement the
solution that you mentioned in your reply. you can always have string field
and in your pf parameter you can boost that field to get the exact match
Why I am seeing this behavior.
>
> is there anyway to say qf=f1 on the interface and get only exact results if
> present (in this case though f1 is string but the q parameter has spaces. do
> I need to use pf field
> I am using dismax query parser.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/string-field-does-not-yield-exact-match-result-using-qf-parameter-tp4060096.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
the interface and get only exact results if
present (in this case though f1 is string but the q parameter has spaces. do
I need to use pf field
I am using dismax query parser.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/string-field-does-not-yield-exact-match-result-u
I did run attempt queries with and without escaping at the admin query
browser; made no difference. I seem to recall that the system did not
work without escaping, but it does seem worth blocking escaping and
testing again.
Many thanks
Jack
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Michael Della Bitta
wr
Hello Jack,
I'm not sure if this is an option for you, but if you submit and
retrieve your documents using only SolrJ, you won't have to worry
about escaping them for encoding into a particular document format.
SolrJ would handle that for you.
Michael Della Bitta
Ok. I have revisited this issue as deeply as possible using simplistic
unit tests, tossing out indexes, and starting fresh.
A typical Solr document might have a label, e.g. the string inside the
quotes: "Node Type". That would be queried, according to what I've
been able to read, as a Phrase Quer
Michael,
I don't think you misunderstood. I will soon give a full response here, but
am on the road at the moment.
Many thanks
Jack
On Friday, February 22, 2013, Michael Della Bitta <
michael.della.bi...@appinions.com> wrote:
> My mistake, I misunderstood the problem.
>
> Michael Della Bitta
>
>
My mistake, I misunderstood the problem.
Michael Della Bitta
Appinions
18 East 41st Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10017-6271
www.appinions.com
Where Influence Isn’t a Game
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> : If you'r
: If you're submitting documents as XML, you're always going to have to
: escape meaningful XML characters going in. If you ask for them back as
: XML, you should be prepared to unescape special XML characters as
that still wouldn't explain the discrepency he's claiming to see between
the json &
Hi Jack,
If you're submitting documents as XML, you're always going to have to
escape meaningful XML characters going in. If you ask for them back as
XML, you should be prepared to unescape special XML characters as
output. Same goes for JSON, etc. There's really no way around this...
it's just a
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
