Hi,
with 20 fields for 3 millonDocs. how much time will it take for
indexing and searching ( searhing all indices whether distributed or on a
singleNode). Assume if one has to fire a 3 million queries in this case
which returns all the docs. I just want to know the metrics. I think If we
have
Thanks for answers..
So, I download Solr thanks to SVN ->
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/solr/trunk/
I apply the patch SOLR-769 and i have these errors messages :
debian:/home/jeimecke/Desktop/solr# patch -p 0 -i SOLR-769.patch
patching file NOTICE.txt
Hunk #5 FAILED at 106.
1 out of 5 hu
Hi,
We are trying to implement an auto-suggest feature in our application that
uses Solr as the core engine for search.
The XML is structured as follows:
QLrKnirLDEo9DThnL2h
Description
Cat1
Cat2
Kalidoss
Kaling
Soundoss
We transform the same in solr understandable fo
My requirement is to fetch records whthin range of 45 days.
1) ?q=date_field:[NOW TO NOW-45DAYS] is not returning any results
2) ?q=date_field:[NOW TO NOW+45DAYS] is throwing exception
however I get correct results when i run following query :
?q=date_field:[* TO NOW]
Please suggest the c
Hi,
I am using Wordnet dictionary for spelling suggestions.
The dictionary is converted to Solr index with only one field "word"
and stored in location /data/syn_index, using syns2Index.java
program available at
http://www.tropo.com/techno/java/lucene/wordnet.html
I have added the "word" fie
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:38 PM, prerna07 wrote:
>
>
>
> My requirement is to fetch records whthin range of 45 days.
>
> 1) ?q=date_field:[NOW TO NOW-45DAYS] is not returning any results
this works for me if you interchange the range limits viz. [NOW-45DAYS TO
NOW]
>
> 2) ?q=date_field:[NOW TO
Hi,
I am using a ranking algorithm by modifying the XMLWriter to use a
formulation which takes the top 3 results and query with the 3 results and
now presents the result with as function of the results from these 3
queries. Can anyone reply if I can take the top 3results and query with them
in the
1) [NOW-45 TO NOW] works for me now.
2) [NOW TO NOW+45DAYS] is still throwing following exception :
--
message org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException: Cannot parse
'dateToTest_product_s:[NOW TO NOW 45DAYS]': Encountered "45DAYS" at line 1,
column 33. Was ex
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, prerna07 wrote:
>
>
> 1) [NOW-45 TO NOW] works for me now.
> 2) [NOW TO NOW+45DAYS] is still throwing following exception :
>
> --
> message org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException: Cannot parse
> 'dateToTest_product_s:[NOW TO N
Hi,
I have installed solr lucene 1.3. I am facing a problem wile searching it did
not provides multiple records.
Instead of providing multiple records it provides single record multiple times..
with regards
Rohit Arora
Please provide an example of what you mean. What and how did you
index? What was the query?
Erik
On Jan 8, 2009, at 8:34 AM, rohit arora wrote:
Hi,
I have installed solr lucene 1.3. I am facing a problem wile
searching it did not provides multiple records.
Instead of providi
Any update on this?? Please let me know?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Kalidoss MM wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are trying to implement an auto-suggest feature in our application that
> uses Solr as the core engine for search.
>
> The XML is structured as follows:
>
>
> QLrKnirLDEo9DThnL2h
>
> Descri
Hmm, OK. This is due, I bet, to some source being moved around in
trunk and being in a different location in the build area. The trick
would be to change the classpath as appropriate in the clustering
contrib build.
I will try to put up a new patch this weekend.
On Jan 8, 2009, at 4:51
Did you send in the build command? See
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpellCheckComponent
On Jan 8, 2009, at 5:14 AM, Deshpande, Mukta wrote:
Hi,
I am using Wordnet dictionary for spelling suggestions.
The dictionary is converted to Solr index with only one field "word"
and stored in location
Ah ok,
the response i get when executing only the following, produces no facet
counts. It could be a bug.
facet.query=[price:[* TO 500], price:[500 TO *]
However, when i add an unrelated facet field, i do get the desired count:
query=[price:[* TO 500], price:[500 TO *]],q=*:*,facet.field=cat
Thanks for considering my problem
Cheers,
Jean-Philip Eimecke
Hi,
I too have a similar question on getting the query results based on
dateRange. I have both startDate and endDate fields in my schema and if I
want to get the query results that fall into two date values for eg: get all
the docs. whose date is between startDate and endDate, then how can
I'm a relative newbie at Solr/Lucene so apologies if this question is
overly simplistic. I have an index built and functioning as expected,
but I am trying to build a query that can sort/score results based on
the search terms position in the document, with a document appearing
higher in the result
Hello Mark,
You could have position information play a role in scoring if you use Span*
family of queries. I believe they are currently not supported by Solr, but I
believe you could use QSolr + https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-896 to
get what you need.
As for assigning different we
Hi There,
I have been building a Solr environment that indexes roughly 3 million
products. The current index is roughly 9gig in size. We have bumped
into some issues performance issues with Solr's Replication. During
the Solr slave snapshot installation, query times take longer and may
in some cas
Hi,
I use solr 1.3 and I have two questions about spellcheck.
1) if my index docs are like:
university1
UNIVERSITY
street1, city1
LOCATION
is it possible to build the spell check dictionary using field "NAME" but
with filter "TYPE"="UNIVERSITY"?
That is, I only want to include the university
I'm seeing a really weird problem with Solr 1.3. The best match for a
query will not show up with 10 rows, but will show up if I request more,
sometimes 200, sometimes it takes 1000 rows.
I tried increasing the row size by 10 and with some of those increments,
the first hit would change to a more
Chris Hostetter wrote:
: We have an architecture where we want to flip the solr data.dir (massive
: dataset) while running and serving search requests with minimal downtime.
...
: 1) What is the fastest / best possible way to get step 1 done ,through a
: pluggable architecture.
:
: Curr
Hi All,
I'm very new to Solr, and also fairly new Java and servlet containers, etc.
I'm trying to set up Solr on a single machine with a distributed index. My
current implementation uses Tomcat as a servlet container with multiple
instances of Solr being served. Each instance of Solr is a shar
Distributed search requires more work (more than one pass.) If you
weren't CPU bound to begin with, it's definitely going to make things
worse by splitting up the index on the same box.
-Yonik
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM, smock wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I'm very new to Solr, and also fairly new
Hi Yonik,
Thanks for the reply - could you please give me some more details on what
you mean? I was able to obtain a performance boost by distributing Sphinx
on the same box, with multiple processors. Each instance of sphinx ran on a
different processor, and given that there was a performance b
So I have Solr running, I've run through the tutorials online, can
import data from the example xml and see the results, so it works!
Now, I take some xml data I have, convert it over to the add / doc
type that the demo ones are, run it and find out which fields aren't
defined in schema.xml, I add
Hmm, this was fixed by restarting Solr.
When does Solr/Lucene check for index file formats? We switched from
a Lucene 1.9 index to a Lucene 2.4 index without a restart. Could that
cause this?
wunder
On 1/8/09 11:40 AM, "Walter Underwood" wrote:
> I'm seeing a really weird problem with Solr 1.3
Phil,
The easiest thing to do at this stage in Solr learning experience is to restart
Solr (servlet container) and redo the search. Results shouls start showing up
then because this will effectively reopen the index.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- O
Hm, this is becomeing a FAQ :)
Have you checked recent discussions about this via markmail.org?
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
> From: David Giffin
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2009 2:04:39 PM
> S
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM, smock wrote:
> Thanks for the reply - could you please give me some more details on what
> you mean?
If there isn't enough memory to cache the index in RAM, then your
bottleneck could be from retrieving stored fields from disk.
Distributed search will make this muc
I have set up cron jobs that update my index every 15 minutes. I have a
distributed setup, so the steps are:
1. Update index on indexer machine (and possibly optimize)
2. Invoke snapshooter on indexer
3. Invoke snappuller on searcher
4. Invoke snapinstaller on searcher.
These updates are small, d
Assuming I have enough RAM then, should I be able to get a performance boost
with my current setup? Basically, the question I am trying to answer is -
will the Tomcat+Solr setup I have above utilize multiple processors or do I
need to do something else (like having a different tomcat instance for
Solr will use multiple processors. Most of your speed will come from
cached responses. Use a single instance, test with real query logs,
and tune the cache sizes by looking at the cache hit statistics in
the statistics page of the Solr admin UI.
wunder
On 1/8/09 3:37 PM, "smock" wrote:
>
> Ass
On 8-Jan-09, at 3:37 PM, smock wrote:
Assuming I have enough RAM then, should I be able to get a
performance boost
with my current setup? Basically, the question I am trying to
answer is -
will the Tomcat+Solr setup I have above utilize multiple processors
or do I
need to do something el
: Solr/Lucene. I am in a situation where I think that I can improve the
: quality of the LikeThis-documents significantly by restricting the
: MoreLikeThis-query to documents where one field has its term in a
: specified range. That is, I would like to add a RangeQuery to the
: default MoreLikeThi
: Hmm, that makes sense to me - however I still think that even if we have mm
: set to "2" and we have "the 7449078" it should still match 7449078 in a
: productId field (it does not:
: http://zeta.zappos.com/search?department=&term=the+7449078). This seems like
: it works against the way one woul
did you explore using SolrJ to index data?
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solrj
or DataImportHandler.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DataImportHandler
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Otis Gospodnetic
wrote:
> Phil,
>
> The easiest thing to do at this stage in Solr learning experience is to
> restart
Mike,
I should have more than enough RAM to fit the index in, I don't think my
searches will be IO bound.
One question - just to make sure I understand - did you use one Jetty
instance per shard? In my case, what I'm doing is using one Tomcat instance
to run multiple Solr webapps. I'm not sur
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:25 PM, smock wrote:
> I should have more than enough RAM to fit the index in, I don't think my
> searches will be IO bound.
There is still overhead to distributed search - if the actual CPU
bound search/faceting stuff isn't your bottleneck, or if the index is
too small, t
: I just upgraded my system from Solr 1.2 to Solr 1.3. I am using the same
: plugin for the queryResponseWriter that I used in Solr1.2. Problem here is
: that when I am using *wt* parameter as the plugin name with full package
: then I don't get the response which I used to get in 1.2 and when I d
Yonik,
I don't mean to be argumentative - just trying to understand, what is the
difference between distributed search across processors, and distributed
search across boxes (again, assuming that my searches are truly CPU bound)?
My only basis for comparison is sphinx, which I was able to get to
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:03 PM, smock wrote:
> I don't mean to be argumentative - just trying to understand, what is the
> difference between distributed search across processors, and distributed
> search across boxes (again, assuming that my searches are truly CPU bound)?
Even if your searches
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
> you have a custom response writer you had working in
> Solr 1.2, and now you are trying to use that same custom response writer in
> Solr 1.3 with distributed requests?
Right, that's probably the crux of it - distributed search required
som
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
> Hmm, this was fixed by restarting Solr.
That's a bit spooky.
> When does Solr/Lucene check for index file formats? We switched from
> a Lucene 1.9 index to a Lucene 2.4 index without a restart. Could that
> cause this?
It should be whene
Hi Kay,
do you wish to change data dir or just indexdir.
It is possible to switch indexDir w/ minimal overhead.
dataDir can contain a index.properties file which can contain a
property called 'index' it can point to your new index .
but you will have to find a way to populate this index
Replica
Hi Yonik,
I see, I didn't realize that there was a 2nd phase to retrieve stored
values. Sphinx also queries the top n number of documents and combines the
results - unless the algorithm is very different, I wouldn't expect that
this adds a lot of overhead as sphinx has a very definite performance
Yes. I send the build command as:
http://localhost:8080/solr/select/?q=documnet&spellcheck=true&spellcheck
.build=true&spellcheck.count=2&spellcheck.q=parfect&spellcheck.dictionar
y=dict
The Tomcat log shows:
Jan 9, 2009 9:55:19 AM org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore execute
INFO: [] webapp=/solr path=
Maybe we should back up a bit and look at your requirements: both
query latency and throughput.
If the index is small enough, distributed search is definitely not the
first step to take to address performance issues - there are many
other things to look into first.
Start by looking at what queries
Hi Yonik,
In some ways I have a 'small index' (~8 million documents at the moment).
However, I have a lot of attributes (currently about 30, but I'm expecting
that number to keep growing) and am interested in faceting across all of
them for every search (on a completely unrelated note, if you h
Are you on Solr 1.3 or a recent nightly build? The development
version of 1.4 has a number of scalability enhancements.
-Yonik
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, smock wrote:
>
> Hi Yonik,
>
> In some ways I have a 'small index' (~8 million documents at the moment).
> However, I have a lot of at
I'm using 1.3 - are the nightly builds stable enough to use in production?
yonik wrote:
>
> Are you on Solr 1.3 or a recent nightly build? The development
> version of 1.4 has a number of scalability enhancements.
>
> -Yonik
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:18 AM, smock wrote:
>>
>> Hi Yonik,
Hi,
It gives this out put ..
5.361002
8232
Quality Testing International
Quality Testing International the ideal exhibition for measuring technique
testing of materials and quality assurance. Profile for exhibit include
Customer profiling; customer marketing; loyalty systems
There are two documents in that response. Are you adding the same document
multiple times to Solr?
You can also specify a uniqueKey in the schema.xml which will make sure that
Solr keeps only one document for a given key and removes the duplicate
documents.
In the response you have pasted, the 'i
Hi All,
I have a field with is solr.DateField in my schema file. If I want to
get the docs. for a given date for eg: get all the docs. whose date value is
2009-01-09 then how can I query my index. As solr's date format is
-mm-ddThh:mm:ss,
if I give the date as 2009-01-09T00
Hi,
I have add one document only single time but the out put provided by lucene
give me
the same document multiple times..
If i specify rows=2 in out put same document will be 2 times.
If i specify rows=10 in out put same document will be 10 times.
I have already defined 'id' field as a unique
You will have to URL encode the string correctly and supply date in format
Solr expects. Please check this: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrQuerySyntax
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Rayudu wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> I have a field with is solr.DateField in my schema file. If I want to
> get th
57 matches
Mail list logo
