The sample schema in Solr 1.2 supplies two variants of integers, longs,
floats, doubles. One variant is sortable and one is not.
What is the point of having both? Why would I choose the non-sorting
variants? Do they store fewer bytes per record?
Thanks,
Lance Norskog
On 10/11/07, BrendanD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, we have some huge performance issues with non-cached queries. So doing a
> commit is very expensive for us. We have our autowarm count for our
> filterCache and queryResultCache both set to 4096. But I don't think that's
> near high enough. We
On 10/11/07, Debra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can I add a field name to query dynamicly?
> Examle: If user types "in stock" replace it with "quantity:[1 TO *]"
Sounds like it might be best handled by a front end GUI that creates
the right request to send to Solr.
-Yonik
On 10/11/07, BrendanD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a difference in the performance for the following 2 variations on
> query syntax? The first query was a response from Solr by using a single fq
> parameter in the URL. The second query was a response from Solr by using
> separate fq parame
On 10/13/07, Lance Norskog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The sample schema in Solr 1.2 supplies two variants of integers, longs,
> floats, doubles. One variant is sortable and one is not.
>
> What is the point of having both? Why would I choose the non-sorting
> variants? Do they store fewer bytes p
Negative boosts? Try 0.0 to 0.99 for the negative effect.
Otis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Simpy -- http://www.simpy.com/ - Tag - Search - Share
- Original Message
From: Matthew Runo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday,
