Search the list for my post "DIH - deleting documents, high performance
(delta) imports, and passing parameters" which shows my solution a
similar problem.
Ephraim Ofir
-Original Message-
From: Alexandre Rocco [mailto:alel...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:24 PM
To: solr-user@
Maxwarm searcher should be 2 for best practices.
Either Your commit frequency is high or you have autowarming the queries on
master too in big numbers.
-
Thanx:
Grijesh
www.gettinhahead.co.in
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/MaxWarming-Searcher-tp2982658p
Hi all,
I'm quite new to Solr and I'm supporting an existing Solr search engine
which was written by someone else. I've been reading on Solr for the last
couple of weeks so I'd consider myself beyond the basics.
A particular field, let's say name, is multi-valued. For example, a document
has a fi
No one has an idea?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Termscomponent-sort-question-tp2980683p2983776.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Any help? It can be done out side of solr application but just wanted to know
if solr has some features for supporting this
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/adding-results-external-to-index-tp2946548p2983984.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at
In my schema.xml file i made a filed attribute indexed=false and stored=true.
ie. i am not indexing this field but still in my search results i am getting
values for this field, why is so any idea?
-
Romi
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/problem-in-setting-f
Please reply, i am not getting any of my problems reply in this forum.
-
Romi
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/problem-in-setting-field-attribute-in-schema-xml-tp2984126p2984151.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi,
It seems i cannot escape the equals-sign in the source file for the external
file field. Anyone knows another work-around? Except for not using values with
that character of course ;)
Cheers,
--
Markus Jelsma - CTO - Openindex
http://www.linkedin.com/in/markus17
050-8536620 / 06-50258350
Any thoughts on this one?
On Monday 23 May 2011 17:41:00 Markus Jelsma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know about the behaviour of the onlyMorePopular setting. It can return
> suggestions while the actual query is correctly spelled. There is, in my
> opinion, some bad behaviour, consider the following query t
if you never want to see a result for a field set stored = false.
Best Regards,
Bryan Rasmussen
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Romi wrote:
> In my schema.xml file i made a filed attribute indexed=false and stored=true.
> ie. i am not indexing this field but still in my search results i am gett
if i do stored=false then it indexes the data but not shows the data in
search result. but in my case i do not want to index the data for a field
and to the my surprise even if i am doing indexed="false" for this field, i
am still able to get that data through the query *:* but not getting the
data
surely it indexes the data if you do indexed = true.
if you put some data in the field that is unique to that document and
then search do you get it? If not then it is because it is not
indexed. If you do a search for another field in the same document but
still get the non-indexed field shown it
If i do uniqueField to indexed="false" then it shows the exception
org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Schema Parsing Failed
and in http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SchemaXml#Fields it is clearly mentioned
that a non-indexed field is not searchable then why i am getting search
result. why should sto
Dear list,
I'm posting here after some unsuccessful investigations.
In my setup I push documents to Solr using the StreamingUpdateSolrServer.
I'm sending a comfortable initial amount of documents (~250M) and wished
to perform overwriting of duplicated documents at index time, during the
update
On 5/25/2011 9:29 AM, Romi wrote:
> and in http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SchemaXml#Fields it is clearly mentioned
> that a non-indexed field is not searchable then why i am getting search
> result. why should stored="true" matter if indexed="false"
"indexed" controls whether you can find the documen
It's very strange. Even I tried the same now and am getting the same result.
I have set both indexed=false and stored=false.
But still if I search for a keyword using my default search, I get the
results in these fields as well.
But if I specify field:value, it shows 0 results.
Can anyone explain?
Created issue and added simple patch:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2545
On Wednesday 25 May 2011 14:55:34 Markus Jelsma wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems i cannot escape the equals-sign in the source file for the
> external file field. Anyone knows another work-around? Except for not
> usin
You probably get tricked by an old index which was created while you had
stored=true
Delete your index, restart Solr, re-index content and try again.
Solr will happily serve what's in the Lucene index even if it does not match
your current schema - that's why it's important to re-index everythi
Am 25.05.2011 15:47, schrieb Vignesh Raj:
It's very strange. Even I tried the same now and am getting the same result.
I have set both indexed=false and stored=false.
But still if I search for a keyword using my default search, I get the
results in these fields as well.
But if I specify field:val
Dear list,
hope somebody can help me understand/avoid this.
I am sending an "add" request with allowDuplicates=false to a Solr 1.4.1
instance.
This is for debugging purposes, so I am sending the exact same data that are
already stored in Solr's index.
I am using the PHP PECL libraries, which f
I am taking a snapshot after every commit. From looking at the snapshots,
it does not look like the delay in caused by segments merging because I am
not seeing any large new segments after a commit.
I still can't figure out why there is a 2 minutes gap between "start commit"
and "SolrDelectionPol
I tried deleting the index and trying it again. But still I get the same
result.
Regards
Vignesh
-Original Message-
From: Jan Høydahl [mailto:jan@cominvent.com]
Sent: 25 May 2011 19:30
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: problem in setting field attribute in schema.xml
You
Hi all,
I sent a mail in about this topic a week ago but now that I have more
information about what I am doing, as well as a better understanding of how
the similarity class works, I wanted to start a new thread with a bit more
information about what I'm doing, what I want to do, and how I can ma
Hi,
I am just curious what is the communication protocol that a slave node get
the index update from the master node in a replication settings? Is it
through TCP? I assume it only gets the delta?
Thanks very much in advance.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/c
Hi Ephraim,
Thank you so much for the input.
I was able to find your thread on the archives and got your solution to
work.
In fact, when using $deleteDocById and $skipDoc it worked like a charm. This
feature is very useful, it's a shame it's not properly documented.
The only downside is the one y
The "failure to commit" bug with $deleteDocById can be fixed by applying patch
SOLR-2492. This patch also partially fixes the "no updated stats" bug in that
it increments 1 for every call to $deleteDocById and $deleteDocByQuery. Note
that this might result in inaccurate counts if the id given
I'm pretty sure it's over HTTP, although I don't know the details of the
requests/responses.
The slave will download any index files that have changed on master. A
Solr index is split up amongst a number of seperate files on disk.
There's no way for slave to get a delta beyond getting a compl
I looked at the patch page and saw the files that were changed. I went into
my install and looked at those same files and found that they had indeed
been changed. So it looks like I have the correct version of solr.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Brian Lamb
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I sent a mail in
Hi James,
Thanks for the heads up!
I am currently on version 1.4.1, so I can apply this patch and see if it
works.
Just need to assess if it's best to apply the patch or to check on the
backend system to see if only delete requests were generated and then do not
call DIH.
Previously, I found anot
Great. I wasn't aware of the other issue. I put a link on the 2 issues in
JIRA so people can know in the future.
James Dyer
E-Commerce Systems
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311
-Original Message-
From: Alexandre Rocco [mailto:alel...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:34 PM
Hi all,
I'm running into some confusion with the way edgengram works. I have the
field set up as:
I've also set up my own similarity class that returns 1 as the idf score.
What I've found this does is if I match a string "abcdefg" against a field
containing "abcdefghijklm
Help me please...
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Termscomponent-sort-question-tp2980683p2986185.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Thanks for the prompt reply.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/communication-protocol-between-master-and-slave-tp2985163p2986413.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi,
How does solr index a numeric value? Does it index it as a string or does it
keep it as a numeric value?
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/indexing-numbers-tp2986424p2986424.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
the default schema.xml provided in the Solr distribution is
well-documented, and a good place to get started (including numeric
fieldTypes):
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SchemaXml
Lucid Imagination also provides a nice reference guide:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/Downloads/LucidWor
Hello
"Minimum Should Match" does not seem to be working when I am using the boost
with external field scoring (I followed
http://dev.tailsweep.com/solr-external-scoring/ example to implement
external field scoring.)
I am using a month old solr trunk build (4.0).
Thanks for help.
Ajay
Here are
Marc SCHNEIDER gmail.com> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a field called test-id but I can't use it when sorting, for example :
> Doesn't work : ("undefined field test")
> http://localhost:8180/solr/test-public/select/?q=test-id:1&sort=test-id+asc
> http://localhost:8180/solr/test-public/select/?q=t
Hello,
Are there any tools that can be used for analyzing the solr logs?
Regards
Sujatha
Hi antonio,
Can you sort yourself on client side?
Are you trying to sort the terms with the same count in reverse order of
their lengths?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:18 PM, antonio wrote:
> Hi, i use solr 3.1.
> I implemented my autocomplete with TermsComponent. I'm finding, if there
> is,
> a w
Hi,
When specifying an analyzer for a fieldType, I can say type="index" or
type="query"
What if I don't spcify the type for an analyzer? Does it default to "index" or
"query" or both?
Thanks.
"indexed" controls whether you can find the document based on the content of
this field.
"stored" controls whether you will see the content of this field in the
result.
ya...but when i set indexed="false" for a particular field, and i search as
*:* then it will search all documents thats true, bu
Hi All,
Since there is no way of controlling the size of Lucene's internal
FieldCache, how can we make sure that we are making good use of it? One of
my shard has close to 1.5M documents and the fieldCache only contains about
10 elements.
Is there anything we can do to control this?
Tha
hi, I want to know what is omitNorms for a field in schema.xml and what will
be its effect on indexing and searching if I set it to true or false, please
suggest me some suitable example.
-
Romi
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/What-is-omitNorms-tp2987547p29
and i also wanted to know what is difference if i set omitNorms in fieldType
or if i set it in field.
-
Romi
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/What-is-omitNorms-tp2987547p2987562.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
This is an advance option. pls see the details on following link
http://www.lucidimagination.com/Community/Hear-from-the-Experts/Articles/Scaling-Lucene-and-Solr#d0e71
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Romi wrote:
> and i also wanted to know what is difference if i set omitNorms in
> fieldTy
even though i am running command for full-import, then also i deleted old
indexes , re created indexes, i am not using defaultSearchFiled and
copyingField attribute, still i am getting the search result for the field
which i set as indexed="true", really strange, please help me to get rid of
this p
Sorry for the late reply to this thread.
I implemented the same patch (solr 2242 )in Solr 1.4.1. Now I am able to
get distinct facet terms count across single index. But this does not work
for distributed process(sharding)..Is there a recent patch that has same
functionality for distributed proces
thanks for the link, i got lot information from this document. Can u please
tell me how can i verify omitNorms effect in my document indexing or
searching.
-
Romi
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/What-is-omitNorms-tp2987547p2987649.html
Sent from the Solr -
Hi, in my database i have two types of entity customer and product. I want to
index customer related information in one document and product related
information in other document. is it possible via solr , if so how can i
achieve this.
Thanks & Regards
Romi.
-
Romi
--
View this message in co
First of all subscribe to the mailing list.
-
Romi
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Single-document-scanning-tp2987614p2987705.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
When you say "omitnorms=true" for any fields it means SOLR will not
store norms . AFAIK , if you do not store these norms then your index size
would be smaller and will take less memory . You could safely omit these
norms for smaller fields .
i.e your indexing time is more.
So if you do not
51 matches
Mail list logo
