Hey,
I have a question regarding the primitive type definitions and use of those
for sorting.
I have an ID field in my index of type SortableLongField, and on my test
index I have about 2 million documents. When doing a sort=id desc and q=*:*
I'm getting out of memory (heap space)...
running the i
We are in a situation where we are trying to match up documents based on a
number of zipcodes.
In our case, zipcodes are just integers, so that hopefully simplifies
things.
So, we might have a document listing a number of zipcodes:
1200-1450,2000,5000-5999
and we want to do a search of "1100
Hi,
Anybody knows how to get the highlighted field, when q term matches in a
stemmed or n-grammed filtered field?
Matching in a normal field (not stemmed or n-grammed) highlighting works
perfectly as expected. But in stemmed matching cases, no highlighting fields
are recovered, and in n-gramming
In stemmed matching cases, highlighter should work correctly.
For example, using example data, I can get highlighted snippets
that include "memory" when quering features:memories.
With respect to highlighting in n-gram field, Solr cannot highlight
terms in out-of-the-box. We have an open issue fo
acts_as_solr accesses the Solr server listed in the config solr.yml
file. You don't have to use the start/stop Rake actions, they are
really just conveniences for development/testing (I personally would
launch Solr separately in production though).
Out of curiosity, what acts_as_solr versi
Thanks Erik for your knd response.
I am using acts_as_solr stable release v0.9 .
I downloaded it from http://github.com/mattmatt/acts_as_solr/tree/master
Regards
Abhay
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> acts_as_solr accesses the Solr server listed in the config solr.yml fi
Range queries?
Cheers
Avlesh
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Anders Melchiorsen wrote:
> We are in a situation where we are trying to match up documents based on a
> number of zipcodes.
>
> In our case, zipcodes are just integers, so that hopefully simplifies
> things.
>
>
> So, we might have
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Aleksander Stensby
wrote:
> So I'm wondering if the Trie based field types are less memory expensive
> than the "old" SortableXXFields?
> sorting on the date field (which is a TrieDateField) works fine (and
> fast)...
In general, yes (assuming there are many uniqu
Yeah, that takes care of the query side, but how can we index a list like
that?
It seems wrong to create a multivalue zipcode field and populate it with
each individual number in all the ranges.
Regards,
Anders.
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:05:01 +0530, Avlesh Singh wrote:
> Range queries?
>
> Chee
Seems wrong, but actually is how I've done this sort of thing (with
year ranges like 1860-1865). Denormalizing/expanding is a pretty
common way to solve problems with Lucene/Solr. There's not that many
zip codes, so expanding shouldn't be prohibitive.
Erik
On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:
is there a way i can actually tell solr which index i want it to search
against with the query? I know it will cost a bit on performance, but it
would be helpful
i have many indexes and it would be nice to determine which one should be
used by the user.
thanks
--
View this message in context:
ht
Are you talking about multiple cores?
Cheers
Avlesh
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:15 PM, DHast wrote:
>
> is there a way i can actually tell solr which index i want it to search
> against with the query? I know it will cost a bit on performance, but it
> would be helpful
> i have many indexes and i
I am working on an XSD document for all the types in the response xml
version 2.2
Do you think there is a need for this?
--
"Good Enough" is not good enough.
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.
Quality First. Measure Twice. Cut Once.
Solr now starts up fine in Tomcat with both JMX and ReplicationHandler
enabled if I construct my working copy as follows:
download solr-r815830
reverse merge r815587 ("SOLR-1427: fixed registry MBean issue")
apply 1427.afterlatch.patch
I haven't tried applying 1427.afterlatch.patch to the svn hea
Perfect, thanks a heap Yonik!
Cheers,
Aleks
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Aleksander Stensby
> wrote:
> > So I'm wondering if the Trie based field types are less memory expensive
> > than the "old" SortableXXFields?
> > sorting on the d
John,
It would be great if Lucene's benchmark were used so everyone
could execute the test in their own environment and verify. It's
not clear the settings or code used to generate the results so
it's difficult to draw any reliable conclusions.
The steep spike shows greater evidence for the IO ca
The question was either non-trivial or heavily uninteresting! No replies yet
:)
Thankfully, I figured out a solution for the problem at hand. For people who
might be looking for a solution, here it goes -
1. Extended the RandomSortField to create your own YourCustomRandomField.
2. Override
Park, Michael wrote:
> I am trying to place the value of around 390,000 characters into a
> single field. However, my search results have become inaccurate. Is
> this too large? I tried bumping the maxFieldLength in the
> solrconfig.xml file to 500,000 and it hasn't fixed the problem.
>
>
>
>
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Park, Michael wrote:
> I am trying to place the value of around 390,000 characters into a
> single field. However, my search results have become inaccurate.
Do you mean that the document should score higher, or that the
document doesn't match a particular query?
I get no results back on a search. But I can see the actual word or phrase in
the stored doc.
-Original Message-
From: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik Seeley
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:18 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: what is too
I'm using the solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory and the
solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory. Is it safe to assume that a token would be
created for each word?
I can't image anything that would be even close to 16383 chars. Is there
a way to dissect the tokens?
Thanks, Mike
-Original Message-
F
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Park, Michael wrote:
> I get no results back on a search. But I can see the actual word or phrase
> in the stored doc.
Ok cool - that should make it much easier to debug.
#1) verify that you changed the maxFieldLength property in both places
in solrconfig.xml, a
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/http%3A--beerpla.net-2009-09-21-solr-how-to-fix-java-io-ioexception-directory-foo-exists-and-is-a-directory-but-cannot-be-listed-list-returned-null--tp25530499p25530499.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I recently hit the problem described in the topic and posted a quick blog
post on how to fix it. Here it is, in case someone will ever encounter it.
http://beerpla.net/2009/09/21/solr-how-to-fix-java-io-ioexception-directory-foo-exists-and-is-a-directory-but-cannot-be-listed-list-returned-null/
h
Hello,
I need a way to limit the number of documents that can be indexed on my
solr-based application. Here is what I have come up with: create a *
UpdateRequestProcessor* and register it on *solrconfig.xml*. When the user
tries to add a document, check if the docs limit has been reached. The
prob
Valdir,
I think you are making it more complicated that it needs to be.
As the administrator, if you don't want them to modify the contents of the
solrconfig.xml file then you should not give them access to do so.
If they already have access to change the contents of the file, you can
revoke suc
Hi,
I followed with the below metioned steps and i am not getting the desired
results.
Let me know if anything else to be done.
Regards
Bhaskar
--- On Fri, 9/18/09, AHMET ARSLAN wrote:
From: AHMET ARSLAN
Subject: Re: Exact word search in Solr
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date: Friday
: I followed with the below metioned steps and i am not getting the desired
results.
: Let me know if anything else to be done.
Ahmet's point was to declare the text_ws fieldtype and then use it on the
field you want to have an "exact" match.
FWIW: describing your goal as an "exact word search
28 matches
Mail list logo
