@Rohit you can look into this.
http://www.javaworld.com/article/2074996/hashcode-and-equals-method-in-java-object---a-pragmatic-concept.html
A good article for hashcode and equals
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Sorting-Problem-with-custom
I tried returning false in equals method but still it has no effect.
Btw is there any documentation where i can look at what the functions are
used for. I can't find any proper documentation related to it. It is very
difficult to guess the usage of the functions.
I don't think it will be a good i
Hi Hoss,
Thanks for the response. Will make the necessary changes and get back to
you.
Btw this is just a testing code. The logic is yet to be implemented. What
according to you could be the best way to return hashcode?
Regards,
Rohit
On Oct 5, 2016 5:27 AM, "Chris Hostetter" wrote:
>
> : Eg:
: Eg: if i make a query to sort by func(cost) desc
: It works.
: Now if i change cost with some another field eg func(rating) desc
: It sorts the result by cost only.
:
: Now if i restart the solr server and call sort by func(rating) it works but
: now it will stick with rating
:
: Any idea why
I am writing a custom ValueSourceParser. Everything is working fine except
when i use valuesourceparser for sorting it stops working for calls with
different data.
Eg: if i make a query to sort by func(cost) desc
It works.
Now if i change cost with some another field eg func(rating) desc
It sorts
Take a look at Solr's use of DocValues:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/DocValues.
There are docValues options that use less memory then the FieldCache.
Joel Bernstein
Search Engineer at Heliosearch
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Jeongseok Son wrote:
> Hello, I'm struggling
Hello, I'm struggling with large data indexed and searched by Solr.
The schema of the documents consist of date(-MM-DD), text(tokenized and
indexed with Natural Language Toolkit), and several numerical fields.
Each document is small-sized but but the number of the docs is very large,
which is
gt;>
>> and basically, because the position field was filled before actual sorting
>> on the page, the positions are incorrect...
>>
>> is this right? i mean sorting is really done after everything finishes and
>> we are about to get results?
>>
>>
>>
l sorting
> on the page, the positions are incorrect...
>
> is this right? i mean sorting is really done after everything finishes and
> we are about to get results?
>
>
>
> -
> Zeki ama calismiyor... Calissa yapar...
> --
> View this message in context:
> h
out to get results?
-
Zeki ama calismiyor... Calissa yapar...
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-Sorting-Problem-tp4023382p4023889.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ops (i couldnt find out exacly why or how, but it is always 3 times )
where it calls my custom method..
-
Zeki ama calismiyor... Calissa yapar...
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-Sorting-Problem-tp4023382p4023871.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailin
lissa yapar...
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-Sorting-Problem-tp4023382p4023861.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
: Background: Basically, I have added a new feature to Solr after I got the
: source code. Similar to the we get "score" in the resultset, I am now able
: to get position (or ranking) information of each document in the list. i.e
: if there are 5 documents in the result set, each of them has its p
.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-Sorting-Problem-tp4023382p4023399.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
his?
-
Zeki ama calismiyor... Calissa yapar...
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-Sorting-Problem-tp4023382.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
.2&start=0&rows=10&indent=on
>
> Cache could not be a problem as it did not fetch any records from the very
> begining.
>
> So, basically it does not fetch any documents/records whereas it does index
> them.
>
> Thanks
> Pratik
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-sorting-problem-tp486144p2889075.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
Hi,
Were you able to sort the results using alphaOnlySort ?
If yes what changes were made to the schema and data-config ?
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-sorting-problem-tp486144p2889473.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at
So, basically it does not fetch any documents/records whereas it does index
them.
Thanks
Pratik
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-sorting-problem-tp486144p2889075.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
on't work
>
> Thanks --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-sorting-problem-tp486144p2886248.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Lance Norskog
goks...@gmail.com
ColXYZ
My data-config looks like :-
In which scenarios would SOLR index the records/documents but the search
won't work
Thanks --
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-sorting-problem-tp486144p2886248.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ng alphaname ... i get this error :-
> The field :foodDesc present in DataConfig does not have a counterpart in
> Solr Schema
>
> Please help
>
> Thanks
> Pratik
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/solr-sorting-problem-tp486144p2851229.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
name "foodDescUS" to "alphaname".
When i try to sort using alphaname ... i get this error :-
The field :foodDesc present in DataConfig does not have a counterpart in
Solr Schema
Please help
Thanks
Pratik
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.
Savvas-Andreas Moysidis wrote:
> In my understanding sorting on a field for which analysis has yielded
> multiple terms just doesn't make sense..
> If you have document#1 with a field A which has the terms Epsilon, Alpha,
> and document#2 with field A which has the terms Beta, Delta and request
> a
Jonathan Rochkind [rochk...@jhu.edu] wrote:
> I too sometimes have similar use cases, and my best ideas about how to
> solve them involve using faceting --- you can facet on a multi-valued
> field, and you can sort facets--but you can only sort facets by "index
> order", a strict byte-by-byte sort.
You may not sort on a tokenized field. You may not sort on a multiValued
field. You can only have one term in a field.
If there are more search terms than documents, A) sorting doesn't mean
anything and B) Lucene will throw an exception.
Erick Erickson wrote:
In general, the behavior when so
Erick Erickson wrote:
> In general, the behavior when sorting is not predictable when
> sorting on a tokenized field, which "text" is. What would
> it mean to sort on a field with "erick" "Moazzam" as tokens
> in a single document? Should it be in the "e"s or the "m"s?
Might it be possible or reas
In general, the behavior when sorting is not predictable when
sorting on a tokenized field, which "text" is. What would
it mean to sort on a field with "erick" "Moazzam" as tokens
in a single document? Should it be in the "e"s or the "m"s?
That said, you probably want to watch out for case
Be
For anyone who faced the same problem, changing the field to string
from text worked!
-Moazzam
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Moazzam Khan wrote:
> The field type of the first name and last name is text. Could that be
> why it's not sorting properly? I just changed it to string and started
> a
The field type of the first name and last name is text. Could that be
why it's not sorting properly? I just changed it to string and started
a full-import. Hopefully that will work.
Thanks,
Moazzam
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Jayendra Patil
wrote:
> need additional information .
> Sorti
need additional information .
Sorting is easy in Solr just by passing the sort parameter
However, when it comes to text sorting it depends on how you analyse
and tokenize your fields
Sorting does not work on fields with multiple tokens.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FAQ#Why_Isn.27t_Sorting_Worki
Hey guys,
I have a list of people indexed in Solr. I am trying to sort by their
first names but I keep getting results that are not alphabetically
sorted (I see the names starting with W before the names starting with
A). I have a feeling that the results are first being sorted by
relevancy then s
riginal Message
>> From: pmg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
>> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:19:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: solr sorting problem
>>
>>
>> I forgot to mention that I made changes to schema after indexing.
>
e.org
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:19:52 PM
> Subject: Re: solr sorting problem
>
>
> I forgot to mention that I made changes to schema after indexing.
>
>
> pmg wrote:
> >
> > I have problem sorting solr results. Here is my solr confi
>
> select/?&rows=100&start=0&q=artistId:100346%20AND%20type:track&sort=alphaTrackSort%20desc&fl=track
>
> does not sort track.
>
> Don't understand what is missing from config
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/solr-sorting-problem-tp17417394p17417408.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
fig
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/solr-sorting-problem-tp17417394p17417394.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Just wanted to add the solution to this problem, in case someone finds
the matching description in the archives (see below).
By reducing the granularity of the timestamp field (stored as slong)
from seconds to minutes the number of unique values was reduced by an
order of magnitude (there are abou
Hi again,
in the meantime I discovered the use of jmap (I'm not a Java programmer)
and found that all the memory was being used up by String and char[]
objects.
The Lucene docs have the following to say on sorting memory use:
> For String fields, the cache is larger: in addition to the above
arr
Hi Otis,
thanks for the hint. Turns out I have 17.8 million unique terms. I'm
fairly sure by now that the problem lies with the sorting. In the Lucene
java docs
(http://lucene.zones.apache.org:8080/hudson/job/Lucene-Nightly/javadoc/org/apache/lucene/search/Sort.html)
it is stated that
> Sorting u
ene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Otis Gospodnetic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:15:23 PM
Subject: Re: Memory use with sorting problem
I'd have to check, but Luke handler might spit that out. If not,
Lucene&#
e.org
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:22:56 AM
Subject: Re: Memory use with sorting problem
Thanks for your reply. I made some memory saving changes, as per your
advice, but the problem remains.
> Set the max warming searchers to 1 to ensure that you never have more
> than one warming at th
Thanks for your reply. I made some memory saving changes, as per your
advice, but the problem remains.
> Set the max warming searchers to 1 to ensure that you never have more
> than one warming at the same time.
Done.
> How many documents are in your index?
Currently about 8 million.
> If you
On Nov 21, 2007 11:06 AM, Chris Laux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now when I reduce the size of caches (to a fraction of the default
> settings) and number of warming Searchers (to 2),
Set the max warming searchers to 1 to ensure that you never have more
than one warming at the same time.
> memo
Hi all,
I've been struggling with this problem for over a month now, and
although memory issues have been discussed often, I don't seem to be
able to find a fitting solution.
The index is merely 1.5 GB large, but memory use quickly fills out the
heap max of 1 GB on a 2 GB machine. This then works
> > Does anyone know what could be the problem?
> >
>
> looks like it was a problem in the new query parser. I just fixed it
> in trunk:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=592740
Thanks it works now.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Thessel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gossamer Threads Inc. h
On 11/7/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yonik - do we want to keep this checking for 'null', or should we change
> QueryParser.parseSort( ) to always return a valid sortSpec?
In Lucene, a null sort is not equal to "score desc"... they result in
the same documents being returned, but
Does anyone know what could be the problem?
looks like it was a problem in the new query parser. I just fixed it in
trunk:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=592740
Yonik - do we want to keep this checking for 'null', or should we change
QueryParser.parseSort( ) to always retu
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 11/7/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yonik - do we want to keep this checking for 'null', or should we change
QueryParser.parseSort( ) to always return a valid sortSpec?
In Lucene, a null sort is not equal to "score desc"... they result in
the same documents
Hi UG,
I just installed the latest nightly solr build
(1.2.2007.11.06.08.06.05). I get an exception when I do descending
relevancy sorting. Ascending relevancy sorting works fine and sorting
on all other fields as well.
http://localhost:8080/solr/select/?q=title%3Atest&sort=score%20desc
Nov 7, 2
on and
> score if the XML response is really big)
>
>
> : Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:21:48 -0700
> : From: Kevin Lewandowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> : To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> : Subject: strange sorting problem
> :
&g
esponse is really big)
: Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:21:48 -0700
: From: Kevin Lewandowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
: To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
: Subject: strange sorting problem
:
: I'm having a problem with sorting on a certain field. In my schema.xm
I'm having a problem with sorting on a certain field. In my schema.xml
it's defined as a string (not analyzed, indexed/stored verbatim). But
when I look at my results (sorted on that field ascending) I get
things like the following:
Yr City's A Sucker
Movement b/w Yr City's A Sucker
X, Y & Sometim
Thank you, Hoss...
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 8:41 PM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: sorting problem
>
>
> : My query tries to search all entries wh
: My query tries to search all entries which their ctype is video sorted by
: tstamp descending and then sorted by popularity:
: However the results returned are sorted only by the tstamp.
Solr stores datefields with millisecond precision, so if you index a date
field without rounding, then all
Hi,
I have 2 fields which I would like to sort by, one is a "date" field and the
other is "sint".
My query tries to search all entries which their ctype is video sorted by
tstamp descending and then sorted by popularity:
q=ctype:video;tstamp desc;popularity desc&fl=tstamp,popularity
However t
On 8/8/06, bo_b <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As mentioned in another post i am trying to index a vbulletin database
containing roughly 7 million posts. The very first query where I apply
sorting after a full indexing, seems to take roughly 264998
ms. Subsequent searches are fast.
I figure the reas
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 02:14 -0700, bo_b wrote:
> Is there any solution to this problem? I would like to be able to sort, but
> we cant live with 264 second downtime after every commit.
There has been many long threads in the Lucene-users forum on this
subject. Try searching for "sorting" in subjec
s(at least for sorting queries)..
Is there any solution to this problem? I would like to be able to sort, but
we cant live with 264 second downtime after every commit.
/Bo
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Incremental-updates-Sorting-problem-tf2071518.html#a5702953
Sent fro
57 matches
Mail list logo
