On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Paul wrote:
> Thanks, going to update now. This is a system that is currently
> deployed. Should I just update to 1.4.1, or should I go straight to
> 3.0? Does 1.4 => 3.0 require reindexing?
There is no 3.0 - that release happened before the Lucene/Solr merge,
he
Paul - go with 1.4.1 in this case.
Keep tabs on the upcoming 3.1 release (of both Lucene and Solr) and consider
that in a month or so.
Erik
On Feb 17, 2011, at 10:04 , Paul wrote:
> Thanks, going to update now. This is a system that is currently
> deployed. Should I just update to 1.
Its fixed in 1.4.1.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1777
On Thursday 17 February 2011 16:04:18 Paul wrote:
> Thanks, going to update now. This is a system that is currently
> deployed. Should I just update to 1.4.1, or should I go straight to
> 3.0? Does 1.4 => 3.0 require reindexing?
>
Thanks, going to update now. This is a system that is currently
deployed. Should I just update to 1.4.1, or should I go straight to
3.0? Does 1.4 => 3.0 require reindexing?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Paul wrote:
>> Is this a known solr
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Paul wrote:
> Is this a known solr bug or is there something subtle going on?
Yes, I think it's the following bug, fixed in 1.4.1:
* SOLR-1777: fieldTypes with sortMissingLast=true or sortMissingFirst=true can
result in incorrectly sorted results.
-Yonik
http:
(I'm using solr 1.4)
I'm doing a test of my index, so I'm reading out every document in
batches of 500. The query is (I added newlines here to make it
readable):
http://localhost:8983/solr/archive_ECCO/select/
?q=archive%3AECCO
&fl=uri
&version=2.2
&start=0
&rows=500
&indent=on
&sort=uri%20asc
I
