Re: Delete By Query issue followed by Delete By Id Issues

Hi Emir, We are deleting a larger subset of docs with a particular value which we know based on the id and only updating a few of the deleted. Our document is of the form __, we need to delete all that has the same , that are no longer in DB and then update only a few that has been updated in DB.

Re: Delete By Query issue followed by Delete By Id Issues

Hi Sujatha, Did I get it right that you are deleting the same documents that will be updated afterward? If that’s the case, then you can simply skip deleting, and just send updated version of document. Solr (Lucene) does not have delete - it’ll just flag document as deleted. Updating document (a

Re: Delete By Query issue followed by Delete By Id Issues

Thanks,Shawn. Our use case is something like this in a batch load of several 1000's of documents,we do a delete first followed by update.Example delete all 1000 docs and send an update request for 1000. What we see is that there are many missing docs due to DBQ re-ordering of the order of delet

Re: Delete By Query issue followed by Delete By Id Issues

On 6/21/2018 9:59 AM, sujatha sankaran wrote: > Currently from our business perspective we find that we are left with no > options for deleting docs in a batch load as : > > DBQ+ batch does not work well together > DBI+ custom routing (batch load / normal)would not work as well. I would expect

Re: Delete By Query issue followed by Delete By Id Issues

Thanks,Shawn. Currently from our business perspective we find that we are left with no options for deleting docs in a batch load as : DBQ+ batch does not work well together DBI+ custom routing (batch load / normal)would not work as well. We are not sure how we can proceed unless we don't hav

Re: Delete By Query issue followed by Delete By Id Issues

On 6/20/2018 3:46 PM, sujatha sankaran wrote: > Thanks,Shawn. Very useful information. > > Please find below the log details:- Is your collection using the implicit router?  You didn't say.  If it is, then I think you may not be able to use deleteById.  This is indeed a bug, one that has been re

Re: Delete By Query issue followed by Delete By Id Issues

Thanks,Shawn. Very useful information. Please find below the log details:- 2018-06-20 17:19:06.661 ERROR (updateExecutor-2-thread-8226-processing-crm_v2_01_shard3_replica1 x:crm_v2_01_shard3_replica2 r:core_node4 n:masked:8983_solr s:shard3 c:crm_v2_01) [c:crm_v2_01 s:shard3 r:core_node4 x:cr

Re: Delete By Query issue followed by Delete By Id Issues

On 6/15/2018 3:14 PM, sujatha sankaran wrote: We were initially having an issue with DBQ and heavy batch updates which used to result in many missing updates. After reading many mails in mailing list which mentions that DBQ and batch update do not work well together, we switched to DBI. But we

Delete By Query issue followed by Delete By Id Issues

We were initially having an issue with DBQ and heavy batch updates which used to result in many missing updates. After reading many mails in mailing list which mentions that DBQ and batch update do not work well together, we switched to DBI. But we are seeing issue as mentioned in this jira is

Re: LTR - OriginalScore query issue

>From Apache Solr tests : loadFeature( "SomeEdisMax", SolrFeature.class.getCanonicalName(), "{\"q\":\"{!edismax qf='title description' pf='description' mm=100% boost='pow(popularity, 0.1)' v='w1' tie=0.1}\"}"); *qf='title description'* Can you try again using the proper

Re: LTR - OriginalScore query issue

Yes, I have tried that too: But it was throwing error while feature extraction: "Exception from createWeight for SolrFeature [name=originalLuceneScore, params={q={!dismax qf=tem_type_all^30.0 ..}${user_query}}] Failed to parse feature query. at org.apache.solr.ltr.LTRScoringQuery.crea

Re: LTR - OriginalScore query issue

I understood your requirement, the SolrFeature feature type should be quite flexible, have you tried : { name: "overallEdismaxScore", class: "org.apache.solr.ltr.feature.SolrFeature", params: { q: "{!dismax qf=item_typel^3.0 brand^2.0 title^5.0}${user_query}" }, store: "myFeatureStoreDemo",

Re: LTR - OriginalScore query issue

I do have the features defined as below for field specific (title..) matching etc: features: [ { name: "productNewness", class: "org.apache.solr.ltr.feature.SolrFeature", params: { q: "{!func}recip( ms(NOW,launchdate_pl), 3.16e-11, 1, 1)" }, store: "myFeatureStoreDemo", }, { name: "originalScore",

Re: LTR - OriginalScore query issue

>From the snippet you posted this is the query you run : q=id:"13245336" So the original score ( for each document in the result set) can only be the score associated to that query. You then pass an EFI with a different text. You can now use that information to calculate another feature if you wa

LTR - OriginalScore query issue

solr/collection/select?fl=id,score,[features+store=myFeatureStore+efi.user_query='black shoes']&wt=json&q=id:"13245336"&debugQuery=on When we fire this query during feature extraction, the originalScore feature gets the score of the "id" match but not the actual user query which is in this case 'b

Re: query issue

Hi Kris, It is because there is no token 'ddd' in content field. There are tokens that start with 'ddd', but that is not what you asked for. If you want 'ddd' to match 'd' than your query should be content:ddd* Please take a look at how Solr tokenization works: https://cwiki.apache.o

query issue

SOLR 5.4.1. Executing query content:ddd on the core below in the solr web interface returns no documents but query content:Dispatches returns doc 1. Why does the first query return no documents? Doc 1 { "id":"https://snip/inside/news/dispatches/view.cfm?id=2571";, "url":"https

Re: Re-ranking query: issue with sort criteria and how to disable it

Hi Joel, just created [1] a new issue for that. Many thanks again Andrea [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9095 On 06/05/16 20:21, Joel Bernstein wrote: Maybe one ticket would work. Something like: "ReRanker should gracefully handle sorts without score". Then you can describe t

Re: Re-ranking query: issue with sort criteria and how to disable it

Maybe one ticket would work. Something like: "ReRanker should gracefully handle sorts without score". Then you can describe the two scenarios. It might be that these problems are tackled outside of the ReRankQParserPlugin. Possibly the QueryComponent could add some logic that would tack on the seco

Re: Re-ranking query: issue with sort criteria and how to disable it

Hi Joel, many thanks for the response and sorry for this late reply. About the first question, I can open a JIRA for that. Instead, for disabling the component I think it would be useful to add - an automatic behaviour: if the sort criteria excludes the score the re-ranking could be automatically

Re: Re-ranking query: issue with sort criteria and how to disable it

I would consider the NPE when sort by score is not included a bug. There is the work around, that you mentioned, which is to have a compound sort which includes score. The second issue though of disabling the ReRanker when someone doesn't include a sort by score, would be a new feature of the ReRa

Re-ranking query: issue with sort criteria and how to disable it

Hi guys, I have a Solr 4.10.4 instance with a RequestHandler that has a re-ranking query configured like this: dismax ... {!boost b=someFunction() v=$q} {!rerank reRankQuery=$rqq reRankDocs=60 reRankWeight=1.2} score desc Everythi

Re: Solr range query issue

or "text" field (which)? If a text field, does it have a lower case filter, in which case you don't need lower case. Worst case, you could use a regex query term, but better to avoid that if at all possible. -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message----- From: nutchsolruser Sen

Re: Solr range query issue

Sorry, before asking the question I should have done sufficient searching on internet, I found my answer here. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8883419/solr-alphabetical-range-query Thank You, -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-range-query-issue

Solr range query issue

ame:[a TO z]", "parsedquery_toString": "-name:[a TO z] -name:[a TO z]", "QParser": "LuceneQParser", -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-range-query-issue-tp4155327.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: SOLR 4 - Query Issue in Common Grams with Surround Query Parser

Apologies for the late response as this mail was lost somewhere in filters. Issue was that CommonGramsQueryFilterFactory should be used for searching and CommonGramsFilterFactory for indexing. We were using CommonGramsFilterFactory for both due to which it was not dropping single tokens for common

Solr [version 3.6.1] filter query issue

ΜΕΣΗΜΕΡΙ” or “ΜΕΡΑ” OR “ΜΕΣΗΜΕΡΙ”? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I hope not to bore you with my writing. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-version-3-6-1-filter-query-issue-tp4109989.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: SOLR 4 - Query Issue in Common Grams with Surround Query Parser

Hi Salman, I personally do not perform stopword removal. So are you saying CommonGramsFilter is not useful without CommonGramsFilterQueryFilter? If yes, do you want to add a comment to confluence explaining this? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Filter+Descriptions#FilterDescri

Re: SOLR 4 - Query Issue in Common Grams with Surround Query Parser

Thanks!! Using CommonGramsQueryFilter resolved the issue. This was not there in 1.4.1 and also for some reason was not there in SOLR 4 Release Notes that we studied before upgrading. On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ahmet Arslan wrote: > Hi Salman, > > I never used commons gram filer but I rem

Re: SOLR 4 - Query Issue in Common Grams with Surround Query Parser

Hi Salman,  I never used commons gram filer but I remember there are two classes in this family. CommonGramsFilter and CommonGramsQueryFilter. It seems that CommonsGramsQueryFilter is what you are after.  http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_0_0/analyzers-common/org/apache/lucene/analysis/commongram

Re: SOLR 4 - Query Issue in Common Grams with Surround Query Parser

We used that syntax in 1.4.1 when Surround was not part of SOLR and has to register it. Didn't know that it is now part of SOLR. Any ways this is a red herring since I have totally removed Surround and the issue remains there. Below is the debug info when I give a simple phrase query having common

Re: SOLR 4 - Query Issue in Common Grams with Surround Query Parser

But again, as Ahmet mentioned… it doesn't look like the surround query parser is actually being used. The debug output also mentioned the query parser used, but that part wasn't provided below. One thing to note here, the surround query parser is not available in 1.4.1. It also looks like y

Re: SOLR 4 - Query Issue in Common Grams with Surround Query Parser

Yup on debugging I found that its coming in Analyzer. We are using Standard Analyzer. It seems to be a SOLR 4 issue with Common Grams. Not sure if its a bug or I am missing some config. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Ahmet Arslan wrote: > Hi Salman, > I am confused because with surround no ana

Re: SOLR 4 - Query Issue in Common Grams with Surround Query Parser

Hi Salman, I am confused because with surround no analysis is applied at query time. I suspect that surround query parser is not kicking in. You should see SrndQuery or something like at parser query section. On Monday, December 9, 2013 6:24 AM, Salman Akram wrote: All, I posted this sub-

SOLR 4 - Query Issue in Common Grams with Surround Query Parser

All, I posted this sub-issue with another issue few days back but maybe it was not obvious so posting it on a separate thread. We recently migrated to SOLR 4.6. We use Common Grams but queries with words in the CG list have slowed down. On debugging we found that for CG words the parser is adding

RE: Oregon (OR) cities facet query issue, maybe related to OR being a reserved word?

-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Oregon (OR) cities facet query issue, maybe related to OR being a reserved word? Hi, I would really appreciate any hint/guide to fix this query issue. A Java webapp hits solr with a query that does not returns any result but works for other states. (FL, CA for instance) >F

Re: Oregon (OR) cities facet query issue, maybe related to OR being a reserved word?

> I would really appreciate any hint/guide to fix this query > issue. A Java > webapp hits solr with a query that does not returns any > result but works for > other states. (FL, CA for instance) > From logs: > [code] > solr path=/select > params={facet=on&face

Oregon (OR) cities facet query issue, maybe related to OR being a reserved word?

Hi, I would really appreciate any hint/guide to fix this query issue. A Java webapp hits solr with a query that does not returns any result but works for other states. (FL, CA for instance) >From logs: [code] solr path=/select params={facet=on&facet.mincount=5&facet.s

Re: quoted query issue

1> Try adding &debugQuery=on and see if the query parses the way you expect. 2> Look at your admin/analysis page to see if your fields are getting parsed the way you think. 3> Look in your admin/schema page to see if the actual terms are what you expect... Yeah, it's kind of daunting w

quoted query issue

My query for the terms road and show body:(road show) returns 4 documents. The highlighting shows several instances where road immediately precedes show. However, a query for the phrase "road show" body:("road show") returns no documents. I have similar results with "floor show" and "road

Re: Facet - Range Query issue

Eric, I solved the issue by adding fq parameter in the query. Thank you so much for your reply. Thanks, Murali On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > Well, without seeing the changes you made to the schema, it's hard to tell > much. > Also, could you define "not work"? What, e

Re: Facet - Range Query issue

Well, without seeing the changes you made to the schema, it's hard to tell much. Also, could you define "not work"? What, exactly, fails to do what you expect? But the first question I have is "did you reindex after changing your schema?". And have you checked your index to verify that there valu

Facet - Range Query issue

Hi, I am having issue with querying and using facet. This was working fine earlier: /spell/?q=(sun) AND (pubyear:[1991 TO 2011])&rows=9&facet=true&facet.limit=-1&facet.mincount=1&facet.field=author&facet.field=pubyear&facet.field=format&facet.field=series&facet.field=season&facet.field=imprint&f

Re: Delete by query issue

: Here's the problem: the standard Solr parser is a little weird about : negative queries. The way to make this work is to say : *:* AND -field:[* TO *] the default parser actually works ok ... it's a bug specific to deletion... https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-381 -Hoss

Re: Delete by query issue

that I didn't know? > >> > >> -date_added_solr:[* TO *]' > >> > >> - Original Message - > >> From: "Max Lynch" > >> To: > >> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:12 AM > >> Subject: Delete by query issue &g

Re: Delete by query issue

;date_added_solr'? Is >> this some kind of new query format that I didn't know? >> >> -date_added_solr:[* TO *]' >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Max Lynch" >> To: >> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:12 AM >> Subject: Delet

Re: Delete by query issue

now? > > -date_added_solr:[* TO *]' > > - Original Message - > From: "Max Lynch" > To: > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:12 AM > Subject: Delete by query issue > > > > Hi, > > I am trying to delete all documents that have null values for

Re: Delete by query issue

Excuse me, what's the hyphen before the field name 'date_added_solr'? Is this some kind of new query format that I didn't know? -date_added_solr:[* TO *]' - Original Message - From: "Max Lynch" To: Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 6:12 AM Subject: D

Delete by query issue

Hi, I am trying to delete all documents that have null values for a certain field. To that effect I can see all of the documents I want to delete by doing this query: -date_added_solr:[* TO *] This returns about 32,000 documents. However, when I try to put that into a curl call, no documents get

Re: Phrase Query Issue

rFactory filter. > > Both are copied using copy field. > > > > But as text type is having a SnowballPorterFilterFactory filter it stores > tests as test.So always if I search for "test" tests also will come in my > search result. > Please tell me a way to avoid it. > > Thanks > Ravichandra > -- > View this message in context: > http://old.nabble.com/Phrase-Query-Issue-tp22863529p26586788.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Re: Phrase Query Issue

s having a SnowballPorterFilterFactory filter it stores tests as test.So always if I search for "test" tests also will come in my search result. Please tell me a way to avoid it. Thanks Ravichandra -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Phrase-Query-Issue-tp22863529p2658678

Re: Phrase Query Issue

ignoreCase="true" >words="stopwords.txt" >enablePositionIncrements="true" >/> > generateWordParts="0" generateNumberParts="0" catenateWords="1" > catenateNumbers=&q

Re: Phrase Query Issue

solr-user@lucene.apache.org >> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 8:33:46 PM >> Subject: Re: Phrase Query Issue >> >> >> On Apr 4, 2009, at 1:25 AM, dabboo wrote: >> >> > >> > Erik, >> > >> > Thanks a lot for your reply.

RE: Urgent | Query Issue with Dismax | Please help

> ?q=facetFormat_product_s:"Pfqs ePub eBook Sfqs"&qt=dismaxrequest - dose > not > return results, > although field facetFormat_product_s is defined in dismaxrequest > Handler of > solrconfig.xml When you use the dismax handler, you don't need to specify the field in the query string. It's meant

Urgent | Query Issue with Dismax | Please help

Cassette Sfqs"&qt=dismaxrequest - return correct results Please suggest if there are issues with dismaxrequest or Query mentioned above. Any help around this, would be of great help. Thanks, Amit Garg -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Urgent-%7C-Query-Issue-with

Re: query issue /special character and case

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar < shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:48 AM, revas wrote: > > > Hi , > > > > When i give a query like the following ,why does it become a phrase query > > as shown below? > > The field type is the default text field in

Re: query issue /special character and case

Regarding being able to search SCHOLKOPF (o with no umlaut) and match SCHÖLKOPF (with umlaut) try using the ISOLatin1AccentFilterFactory in your analysis chain: This filter removes accented chars and replaces them with non-accented versions. As always, make sure to add it to the for both

Re: query issue /special character and case

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:48 AM, revas wrote: > Hi , > > When i give a query like the following ,why does it become a phrase query > as shown below? > The field type is the default text field in the schema. > > volker-blanz > PhraseQuery(content:"volker blanz") > What is the query that was sent

query issue /special character and case

Hi , When i give a query like the following ,why does it become a phrase query as shown below? The field type is the default text field in the schema. volker-blanz PhraseQuery(content:"volker blanz") Also when i have special characters in the query as SCHÖLKOPF , i am not able to convert the "o"

Strange Phrase Query Issue with Dismax

e.com/Strange-Phrase-Query-Issue-with-Dismax-tp23650114p23650114.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Phrase Query Issue

Let me second this. People ask for this pretty often. Otis -- Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch - Original Message > From: Erik Hatcher > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 8:33:46 PM > Subject: Re: Phrase Query Issu

Re: Phrase Query Issue

On Apr 4, 2009, at 1:25 AM, dabboo wrote: Erik, Thanks a lot for your reply. I have made some changes in the solr code and now field clauses are working fine with dismax request. Not only this, wildcard characters are also working with dismax and q query parameter. If you want I can sh

Re: Phrase Query Issue

t doesnt shows the right values. >> >> Instead it creates the query like: >> >> isbn13_product_s:\"Glorious Revolution\" >> >> Please suggest how I should tackle this. If I give the phrase search >> in my >> solr console, it returns me the

Re: Phrase Query Issue

rch in my solr console, it returns me the correct results. Thanks, Amit Garg -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Phrase-Query-Issue-tp22863529p22863529.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Phrase Query Issue

Maybe you can have to escape quotes with the % folowed by the exa code of the quote like is done by the php urlencode fonction. "Returns a string in which all non-alphanumeric characters except /-_./ have been replaced with a percent (/%/) sign followed by two hex digits and spaces encoded as

Re: Phrase Query Issue

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:11 PM, dabboo wrote: > > I am passing this to my solr search engine using httpclient. But it is > thrwoing me Invaild Query exception. > I suggest that you use the Solrj client. It will save a you a lot of effort. http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solrj -- Regards, Shalin S

Phrase Query Issue

ution\" Please suggest how I should tackle this. If I give the phrase search in my solr console, it returns me the correct results. Thanks, Amit Garg -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Phrase-Query-Issue-tp22863529p22863529.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: search/query issue. sorting, match exact, match first etc

Have you checked hte archive for other discussions about implementing auto-complete functionality? it'snot something i deal with much, but i kow it's been discussed. your specific requirement that things starting with an exact match be ordered alphabeticly seems odd to me ... i suspect sortin

search/query issue. sorting, match exact, match first etc

Hi, I am trying to utilize solr into an autocomplete thingy. Let's assume I query for 'foo'. Assuming we work with case insensitive here. I would like to have records returned in specific order. First all that have exact match, then all that start with Foo in alphabetical order, then all that con