Hi Brian,
can you send me the email? I would like to play around :-)
Have you opened a JIRA for PdfBox? If not I willl open one if I can reproduce
the issue …
Thanks in advance
Siegfried Goeschl
On 25 May 2014, at 04:18, Brian McDowell wrote:
> Our feeding (indexing) tool halts because So
Sorry typo :- can you send me the PDF by email directly :-)
Siegfried Goeschl
On 25 May 2014, at 10:06, Siegfried Goeschl wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> can you send me the email? I would like to play around :-)
>
> Have you opened a JIRA for PdfBox? If not I willl open one if I can reproduce
> the
Thanx Jack!
Could someone please explain what "batching" means in this case?
(Assuming I have just 1-2 documents per requested id)
regards,
Pavel.
-Original Message-
From: Jack Krupansky [mailto:j...@basetechnology.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 15:51
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
I agree with Eric that this is premature unless you can show that it makes
a difference.
Firstly why are you splitting the data into multiple time tiers (one
recent, and one all) and then waiting to merge results from all of them?
Time tiering is useful when you can do the search separately on bot
Hi Jack,
Thank you for your answer.
I submitted the following Jira issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6113
Thanks,
Liram
-Original Message-
From: Jack Krupansky [mailto:j...@basetechnology.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:56 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Jack Krupansky
wrote:
> Hmmm... that doesn't sound like what I would have expected - I would have
> thought that Solr would throw an exception on the "user" field, rather than
> simply treat it as a text keyword.
No, I believe that's working as designed. edismax
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:50 PM, 张月祥 wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. I'll try it.
>
> We're still interested in the real limitation about "Too many values for
> UnInvertedField faceting on field xxx" .
>
> Could anybody tell us some internals about "Too many values for
> UnInvertedField faceting
I stand corrected! I used to know that.
But I do think the doc for edismax should be more clear on this point- what
happens if an invalid field name is referenced - or more specifically, what
happens if the user references a legitimate field name that merely happens
to be disallowed using uf.
Solr can add the filter for you:
timestamp:[* TO NOW-30SECOND]
Increasing soft commit frequency isn't a bad idea, though. I'd probably do
both. :)
On May 23, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Michael Tracey wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I've got a number of nodes (Solr 4.4 Cloud) that I'm balanc
Hi folks,
I think that the timestamp should be rounded down to a minute (or whatever) to
avoid trashing the filter query cache
Cheers,
Siegfried Goeschl
On 25 May 2014, at 18:19, Steve McKay wrote:
> Solr can add the filter for you:
>
>
>
>timestamp:[* TO NOW-30SECOND]
>
>
But this exception could be thrown by SOLRJ which is a client to the SOLR
server. Isn't that possible.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/ClientAbortException-java-io-IOException-in-solr-query-error-tp4082321p4138093.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list
Hi,
I’m running Solr 4.6.0 on an Ubuntu box. I recently made the following changes:
1. I edited Schema.xml to index my data by a column called timestamp.
2. I then ran the reload procedure as mentioned here
https://wiki.apache.org/solr/CoreAdmin#RELOAD
After that, when I restarted Solr, I get a
12 matches
Mail list logo
