Hi,
I manipulate some "documents", Each document have the same structure.
But i have about 150.000 documents in french and about 200.000 documents in
english.
I also have 2 different applications (one in french and one in english).
French app makes queries only on french docs and English app mak
If your french/english apps really don't need to share data, I don't
think there is any general rule -- the choice will come down to your
personal taste...
One thing to consider is you will probably want to use french analyzers
for the french app and english ones for the english app... depend
Thanks Ryan,
I don't think to Analyzers.
I choose solution with 2 distinct indexes.
--
D
ryan mckinley wrote:
>
> One thing to consider is you will probably want to use french analyzers
> for the french app and english ones for the english app... depending on
> how you configure schema.xml
On 25-May-07, at 9:46 PM, James liu wrote:
facet.analyzer is true, do analyze, if false don't analyze.
why i say that, Chinese word not use space to split, so if
analyzed, it will
change.
now i will use map to fix it before no facet.analyzer.
What if Solr doesn't have access to the unind
I have an app where I want dismax style automatic field boosting (for
the title), but also want to expose lucene query syntax (phrase, range, etc)
The default search field for my schema is "fulltext". I am copying all
the relevant fields but want "Boston" in the title to be worth more then
"B
: > facet.analyzer is true, do analyze, if false don't analyze.
: What if Solr doesn't have access to the unindexed version? My
: suggestion would be to copyField into an unanalyzed version, and
: facet on that.
yeah, i'm not even sure that i understand the orriginal suggestion clearly
(i'd nee
2007/5/29, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
: > facet.analyzer is true, do analyze, if false don't analyze.
: What if Solr doesn't have access to the unindexed version? My
: suggestion would be to copyField into an unanalyzed version, and
: facet on that.
me too.
yeah, i'm not even su
if i understand your suggestion James, you're refering to Solr taking care
of aggregation of searches across multiple seperate servers correct? you
use the term "master solr query instance" but i assume you are refering to
a SOlr server that is merging query results 9and not using the word
"mast
