Hi Jed,
NullPointerException when adding a document w/o the uniqueKey field is
a known bug, and should be fixed shortly.
If the actual schema was null, then that was probably some problem
parsing the schema.
If that's the case, hopefully you saw an exception in the logs on startup?
Anyway, I ag
Hi,
Ah, a convenient thread - I was about to mention that I was able to mistakenly
define multiple 's inside a s fieldType's analyzer without
getting any kind of an error. The correct thing to do is to definite 1
tokenizer followed by N* (token)filters.
Otis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chris,
I figured out my problem. My own jar must be in the examples/solr/lib
directory (which does not exist in the download). I found a hint to
this on the mailing list. The docs don't indicate this anywhere
promenant. Perhaps the lib directory should exist in the default
download in the
329.0 total time
0.0 set up/parsing
125.0 main query
46.0 faceting
100.0 optimized pre-fetch
58.0 debug
Times are in milliseconds. I've found breaking down the timing rather
useful since I have huge stored docs and non-query-related tasks often
ta
On 3/2/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, this would be really helpfull. It would be nice to be able to
put this in in the response output too.
Two votes is enough for me. I'll see if I can get to it this weekend.
-Mike
Hi all,
When creating a combo field for searching, is there any
straight-forward way to boost the contribution of one of the fields
being used to create the combined field?
I'd read the past threads about this, and there didn't seem to be
anything built in to Solr.
A simple hack I did was
On 3/2/07, Ken Krugler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
When creating a combo field for searching, is there any
straight-forward way to boost the contribution of one of the fields
being used to create the combined field?
I'd read the past threads about this, and there didn't seem to be
anythi
I'm "denormalizing" into copyfields, one per boost level,
something like "text", "text_hi", and so on.
wunder
On 3/2/07 3:01 PM, "Yonik Seeley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/2/07, Ken Krugler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When creating a combo field for searching, is there any
Yonik Seeley wrote:
If the actual schema was null, then that was probably some problem
parsing the schema.
If that's the case, hopefully you saw an exception in the logs on
startup?
Using apache-solr-1.1.0-incubating.
Actually not at first, but now I do. But I've gone back and re-created
I almost didn't notice the exception fly by because there's s much
log output, and I can see why I might not have noticed. Yay for
scrollback! (Hrm, I might not have wanted to watch logging for 4
instances of solr all at once. Might explain why so much logging.)
This has bitten me more then
On 3/2/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The rationale with the solrconfig stuff is that a broken config should
behave as best it can.
I don't think that's what I was actually going for in this instance
(the schema).
I was focused on getting correct stuff to work correctly, and worry
On 3/2/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/2/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rationale with the solrconfig stuff is that a broken config should
> behave as best it can.
I don't think that's what I was actually going for in this instance
(the schema).
I was focused
Ryan McKinley wrote:
I almost didn't notice the exception fly by because there's s much
log output, and I can see why I might not have noticed. Yay for
scrollback! (Hrm, I might not have wanted to watch logging for 4
instances of solr all at once. Might explain why so much logging.)
This h
Ryan McKinley wrote:
On 3/2/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/2/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The rationale with the solrconfig stuff is that a broken config should
> behave as best it can.
I don't think that's what I was actually going for in this instance
(the
14 matches
Mail list logo
