Hello,
I have been assigned the task to migrate from Endeca to Solr.
The former engine allowed me to set keyword triggers that, when matched
exactly, caused the web client to redirect to a specified URL.
Does that feature exist in Solr? If so, where can I get some info?
Thank you
Simone,
for such a work you need something external I think.
I would use Apache's mod_rewrite which is super flexible for such purposes.
Among others it can honour existing URL by either serving them reformulated
(e.g. proxied) or by redirecting the browser to use it.
Probably something as flexi
Tucky can also help you if you are u
Sing java..
On Oct 6, 2011 1:24 PM, "Finotti Simone" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been assigned the task to migrate from Endeca to Solr.
>
> The former engine allowed me to set keyword triggers that, when matched
exactly, caused the web client to redirect to a sp
Hello,
I'm now in the process of migrating solr 1.4 -> solr 3.4. It is done
already, just wide scale testing remains. I'll report back if anything pops
up related to the jira ticket. Otherwise I could work closer on the issue,
unless it is fixed.
Dmitry
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:24 AM, Yonik Seel
Thanks Hoss,
I can look into that, once done with solr router migration 1.4->3.4.
Dmitry
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : OK, if SOLR-2403 being related to the bug I described, has been fixed in
> : SOLR 3.4 than we are safe, since we are in the process of migration.
Hi list,
has anyone managed to get querytime synonym expansion working?
Synonym expansion itself is working but I get no search results.
synonyms_test.txt
erwachsenenbildung, adult education, educación de adultos, éducation des adultes
search for "erwachsenenbildung" --> 8 hits
search for "
Query time synonym expansion has problems with multi-word synonyms.
Query parser splits query string according to white-spaces before query string
reaches to analysis chain.
This is a known limitation explained here :
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.SynonymFilt
My thought about this, based on some work we did when we considered using Solr
to index our LAN files:
1) If it matters - if someone misusing the private tags is a real issue (and it
sounds like it would be), then I think you need an application out in front to
enforce this (a good idea with So
OK, I have changed my synonyms_test.txt:
philosophie, philosophy, filosofia
So there are no multi-word synonyms but it is still not working.
And also if setting qs=0 I get a query slop.
search for "philosophie" --> 13 hits
search for "philosophy" --> 21 hits
search for "filosofia" --> 51 hit
Hi,
For the sake of simplicity, I have an index with docs containing the
following fields:
Title
Description
Author
Some searches will obviously be saturated by docs from any given
author if they've simply written more.
I'd like to give a negative boost to these matches, there-by making
s
Sometimes i am seing this in the logs - but i can not tell whats causing
it or if something may be broken, anyone got an idea how to find the
cause or whats going wrong:
2011-10-06 14:19:00.333:WARN:oejs.Response:Committed before 500
org.eclipse.jetty.io.EofException
2011-10-06
14:19:00.334:WARN:o
What happens when you switch to lucene query parser?
E.g. When you add &defType=lucene to your search URL?
--- On Thu, 10/6/11, Bernd Fehling wrote:
> From: Bernd Fehling
> Subject: Re: query synonym expansion howto?
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Date: Thursday, October 6, 2011, 4:41 PM
>
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrRelevancyFAQ#How_do_I_give_a_very_low_boost_to_documents_that_match_my_query
> Hi,
>
> For the sake of simplicity, I have an index with docs containing the
> following fields:
>
> Title
> Description
> Author
>
> Some searches will obviously be saturated by docs
> For the sake of simplicity, I have an index with docs
> containing the following fields:
>
> Title
> Description
> Author
>
> Some searches will obviously be saturated by docs from any
> given author if they've simply written more.
>
> I'd like to give a negative boost to these matches,
> ther
Is there a maximum deep of nested boolean queries?
For example: ((+a b -c) or (c -d) not e) and (+f +g)
We don't want to limit the number of results coming back, so
unfortunately grouping doesn't quite fix it, plus it would, by nature,
group docs by a particular Author together which might not necessarily
be adjacent.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 07:16:48 -0700 (PDT), Ahmet Arslan
wrote:
>> For the sake of
Hello,
See http://search-lucene.com/?q=query+elevation
I think that's the closest thing to what you need. It doesn't do the redirect,
but this is something that's easily doable in your app with a little =>
mapping
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene
In our current system ,we have 3 fields for location, city, state, and
country.People in our system search for one of those 3 strings.
So a user can search for "San Francisco" or "California". In solr I store
those 3 fields as strings and when a search happens I search with an OR
statement ac
Robert,
We've handled situations like this before by writing a custom Solr
SearchComponent that acts as a diversifier with pluggable diversification
algorithms. Maybe something like that would work for you, too?
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosys
Mark,
I don't think there is any (other than just computation resources needed, of
course). How complex/deep do your queries need to be?
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
- Original Message -
> From
Jason,
That sounds pretty simple and works well if you plan on allowing
fielded/structured search.
If not, you could alternatively stick all geo values in a single text field and
avoid dealing with multiple fields.
You may also want to use ngram fields instead of text if you want to still
matc
Hi Otis,
thanks for your answer.
My queries aren't very deep. Not more than 3 or 4 times nested.
I thought maybe the limit is only 2 or 3 times, but so there will be no problem.
Mark
2011/10/6 Otis Gospodnetic :
> Mark,
>
> I don't think there is any (other than just computation resources neede
Hello,
I'm not sure I follow. If the response is cached, Qtime will be cached, too,
no?
If you are looking to monitor Solr, have a look
at http://sematext.com/spm/solr-performance-monitoring/index.html and get in
touch if you'd like to try it.
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: So
Hi Otis,
Thanks for the response. So just to make sure I understand clearly, so I
would store a location field of either text or ngram fields
of the format "San Francisco, California, United States" and use full text
search against that so someone could search for San Francisco or California
and
Expanding CA to California sounds like a use for a synonyms config
file? you can then do that translation at index and query time, if
needed.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:01:33 -0400, Jason Toy
wrote:
> Hi Otis,
> Thanks for the response. So just to make sure I understand clearly, so I
> would store
Yes, sounds right.
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
- Original Message -
> From: Jason Toy
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org; Otis Gospodnetic
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 12:01 PM
> Sub
I attached my patch to do this to the JIRA at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2765?jwupdated=55859&focusedCommentId=13122185#comment-13122185.
Any comments would be appreciated.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> so my initial test worked, this appeared in ZK now
>
We do much the same (along with name, address, postal code, etc.).
However, we use AND when we search: the more data someone can provide, the
fewer and more applicable their search results.
JRJ
-Original Message-
From: Jason Toy [mailto:jason...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2
Just to throw this out there, we use UK postal data for locations, 9m
records and do location lookups/searches by grouping on the first part
of the post code.
Works really well, but apologies for going even more off-topic :)
-Original Message-
From: Jaeger, Jay - DOT
Reply-to: solr-us
I have a Solr 3.4 installation with many cores. Is there a way to use
a single SolrServer instance across my requests or is the best
practice to create a separate SolrServer instance for each core?
It looks as though the option to specify a core for a SolrServer was removed:
https://issues.apache.
You could client-side Google Geocoding on why the user typed in.
Then get the lat,long returned from Google, and do a geo spatial search
On 10/6/11 9:27 AM, "Jason Toy" wrote:
>In our current system ,we have 3 fields for location, city, state, and
>country.People in our system search for
Wow, yes that works!
So the problem is in the ExtendedDismaxQParser because it can't
handle synonym expansion?
From the analysis of SynonymFilterFactory I can see that the type
is correctly set to SYNONYM.
But is that correct that endOffset has for all synonyms the same value?
It marks the end
Hey Martijn,
thx for your reply. I tried really a lot, at least I restart the server
and eh voilá it works as expected. Stupid mistake.
But Martijn I read a lot your postings the last days about the work you have
done. I run into another problem regarding the grouping function including
the c
33 matches
Mail list logo
