Many many thanks for the replies - it was helpful for me to start
understanding how this works.
I'm using 3.5 so this goes to explain a lot. What I have done is if the
query contains a * I make the query lowercase before sending to solr. This
seems to have solved this issue given your explanation
Hello,
We are trying to move our traditional master-slave Solr configuration to
SolrCloud. As our index size is very small (around 1 GB), we are having
only one shard.
So basically, we are having same master-slave configuration with one leader
and 6 replicas.
We are experimenting with maxTime of b
I was helping to look into this with Nick & I think we may have figured out
the core of the problem...
The problem is easily reproducible by starting replication on the slave and
then sending a shutdown command to tomcat (e.g. catalina.sh stop).
With a debugger attached, it looks like the fsyncSe
On 10/1/2014 11:23 PM, Danesh Kuruppu wrote:
> Currently we are using solr for service meta data indexing and Searching .
> we have embedded solr server running in our application and we are using
> solr 1.4 version. Have some doubts to be clear.
>
> 1. What are the performance improvements we can
On 10/2/2014 4:33 AM, waynemailinglist wrote:
> Something that is still not clear in my mind is how this tokenising works.
> For example with the filters I have when I run the analyser I get:
> Field: Hello You
>
> Hello|You
> Hello|You
> Hello|You
> hello|you
> hello|you
>
>
> Does this mean th
On 10/2/2014 6:58 AM, Sachin Kale wrote:
> We are trying to move our traditional master-slave Solr configuration to
> SolrCloud. As our index size is very small (around 1 GB), we are having
> only one shard.
> So basically, we are having same master-slave configuration with one leader
> and 6 repli
On 10/2/2014 7:25 AM, Phil Black-Knight wrote:
> I was helping to look into this with Nick & I think we may have figured out
> the core of the problem...
>
> The problem is easily reproducible by starting replication on the slave and
> then sending a shutdown command to tomcat (e.g. catalina.sh st
right, prior to 3.6, the standard way to handle wildcards was to,
essentially, pre-analyze the terms that had wildcards. This works
fine for simple filters, things like lowercasing for instance, but
doesn't work so well for things like stemming.
So you're doing what can be done at this point, but
Erick,
Thank you for your response. Yup, when I said it is not possible to have a
cross continent data center replica, I meant that we never ever want to do that
because of the latency.
What I was hoping is that I could have Solr cloud in my DataCentre A (DC-A)
and get all the benefits of sha
see the ticket here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6579
including a patch to fix it.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 10/2/2014 7:25 AM, Phil Black-Knight wrote:
> > I was helping to look into this with Nick & I think we may have figured
> out
> > the core o
Hello
i am fighting with cacheImpl="SortedMapBackedCache".
I want to refactor my ugly entities and so i try out sub-entities with
caching.
My Problem is that my cached subquery do not return any values from the
select. but why?
thats my entity
this
If I look into the logs, many times I get only following line without any
stacktrace:
*ERROR - 2014-10-02 19:35:25.516; org.apache.solr.common.SolrException;
java.lang.NullPointerException*
These exceptions are not coming continuously. Once in every 10-15 minutes.
But once it starts, there are co
Try using the cacheKey/cacheLookup parameters instead:
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311
-Original Message-
From: stockii [mailto:stock.jo...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 9:19 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subjec
Did anybody test that?
Best regards.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Ali Nazemian wrote:
> I also check both solr log and solr console. There is no error inside
> that, it seems that every thing is fine! But actually there is not any
> child document after executing process.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 2
I need to upgrade from Solr 4.4 to version 4.10.1 and am not sure if I need
to reindex.
The following from http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solr4.0 leads me to believe I
don't:
"The guarantee for this alpha release is that the index format will be the
4.0 index format, supported through the 5.x series
Here is a different approach.
Set up independent Solr Cloud clusters in each data center. Send all updates
into a persistent message queue (Amazon SQS, whatever) and have each cluster
get updates from the queue.
The two clusters are both live and configured identically, so there is nothing
to
You should of course perform a test first to be sure, but you shouldn't
need to reindex. Running an optimize on your cores or collections will
upgrade them to the new format, or you could use Lucene's IndexUpgrader
tool. In the meantime, bringing up your data in 4.10.1 will work, it just
won't take
Ok I think I understand your points there. Just clarify say if the term was
"Large increased" and my filters went something like:
Large|increased
Large|increase|increased
large|increase|increased
the final tokens indexed would be large|increase|increased ?
Once again thanks for all the help.
Ahmet,Jeff,
Thanks. Some terms are a bit overloaded. By "federated", I do mean the
ability to query multiple, disparate, repositories. So, no. All of my
data would not necessarily be in Solr. Solr would be one of several -
databases, filesystems, document stores, etc... that I would like to
Alexandre,
Thanks. I will have a look.
Alejandro
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
wrote:
> http://project.carrot2.org/ is worth having a look at. It supports
> Solr well. In fact, a subset of it is shipped with Solr
>
> Regards,
>Alex.
> Personal: http://www.outerthou
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the quick response. Running optimize on the index sounds like a
good idea. Do you know if that is possible from the command line?
I agree it is an omission to not be easily able to reindex files and that is
a story I need to prioritize.
Thanks again,
Grainne
--
View
Hi All,
I'm trying to use Solr 4.10 export feature, but I'm getting an error. Maybe
I missed something.
Here's the scenario:
1. Download Solr 4.10.0
2. Use collection1 schema out of the box
3. Add docValues="true" to price and pages fields in schema.xml
4. Index books.json using com
Hi ,
I have an index created by Lucen way back. I just set up a solrCloud, I
don't want to reindex my documents again since I already have the index, how
do I load the existing index into solrCloud empty new collection? I am
able to load it into a solr instance but not sure how to load
Yes, you can just do something like curl
"http://mysolrserver:mysolrport/solr/mycollectionname/update?optimize=true";.
You should expect heavy disk activity while this completes. I wouldn't do
more than one collection at a time.
Michael Della Bitta
Senior Software Engineer
o: +1 646 532 3062
ap
Hi Alejandro,
So your example is better called as "metasearch". Here a quotation from a book.
"Instead of retrieving information from a single information source using one
search engine, one can utilize multiple search engines or a single search
engine retrieving documents from a plethora of do
I am currently running Solr 4.4.0 on RHEL 6. The index used to be mounted
via nfs and it all worked perfectly fine. For security reasons we switched
the index to be sshfs mounted - and this seems to cause solr to fail after a
while. If we switch back to nfs it works again.
The behavior is stran
Thanks Ahmet. Yay! New term :) Although it does look like "federated"
and "metasearch" can be used interchangeably.
Alejandro
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Ahmet Arslan
wrote:
> Hi Alejandro,
>
> So your example is better called as "metasearch". Here a quotation from a
> book.
>
> "Instea
Michael Della Bitta [michael.della.bi...@appinions.com] wrote:
> You should of course perform a test first to be sure, but you shouldn't
> need to reindex.
One gotcha is that support for DocValuesFormat="Disk" was removed in Solr 4.9,
so it simply can't open an index using that format. Fortunatel
Grainne,
I would recommend that you do not do this. In fact, I would recommend you not
use NFS as well, although that’s more likely to work, just not ideally. Solr’s
going to do best when it’s working with fast, local storage that the OS can
cache natively.
Michael Della Bitta
Senior Software
Hi,
The ping request log as below generates too much noise in my solr log:
INFO: [main0] webapp=/solr path=/admin/ping params={} status=0 QTime=0
I don't want to change the global logging level to eliminate this. Instead,
I wonder if there is a way to change the logging level just for such ping
r
Yep getting the same error. Investigating...
Joel Bernstein
Search Engineer at Heliosearch
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Ahmed Adel wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm trying to use Solr 4.10 export feature, but I'm getting an error. Maybe
> I missed something.
>
> Here's the scenario:
>
>
>1. Down
Please allow me to re-phrase my question a bit: I want to eliminate the
dummy ping request, not the ones that are generated by concrete queries.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Junyang Xin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The ping request log as below generates too much noise in my solr log:
> INFO: [main0] web
There is bug in how the export handler is working when you have very few
documents in the index and the solrconfig.xml is configured to enable lazy
document loading:
true
The tests didn't catch this because lazy loading was set to the default
which is false in the tests. The manual testing I did,
Hi All,
I am trying to query a 6 node Solr4.7 cluster with 3 shards and a
replication factor of 2 .
I have fronted these 6 Solr nodes using a load balancer , what I notice is
that every time I do a search of the form
q=*:*&fq=(id:9e78c064-919f-4ef3-b236-dc66351b4acf) it gives me a result
only
If i add this to the end of my query string I get a score back. &fl=*,score"
Is this the default score? I did read some info on scoring and it is
detailed
and granular and conceptual but because of limited time I can't go into
the how's at the moment of the score calculation. Are the links below
Hmmm, nothing quite makes sense here
Here are some experiments:
1> avoid the load balancer and issue queries like
http://solr_server:8983/solr/collection/q=whatever&distrib=false
the &distrib=false bit will cause keep SolrCloud from trying to send
the queries anywhere, they'll be served only
Erick,
Thanks for your reply, I tried your suggestions.
1 . When not using loadbalancer if *I have distrib=false* I get consistent
results across the replicas.
2. However here's the insteresting part , while not using load balancer if
I *dont have distrib=false* , then when I query a particular
Erick,
I would like to add that the interesting behavior i.e point #2 that I
mentioned in my earlier reply happens in all the shards , if this were to
be a distributed search issue this should have not manifested itself in the
shard that contains the key that I am searching for , looks like the s
I have been working to try and identify top selling items in an eCommerce app
and boost those in the results. The struggle I am having is that our catalog
stores products and parts in the same taxonomy. Since parts are ordered more
frequently when you search for something like TV you see cables
bq: Also ,the collection is being actively indexed as I query this, could that
be an issue too ?
Not if the documents you're searching aren't being added as you search
(and all your autocommit intervals have expired).
I would turn off indexing for testing, it's just one more variable
that can get
Eirck,
0> Load balancer is out of the picture
.
1>When I query with *distrib=false* , I get consistent results as expected
for those shards that dont have the key i.e I dont get the results back for
those shards, however I just realized that while *distrib=false* is present
in the query for the sh
H. Assuming that you aren't re-indexing the doc you're searching for...
Try issuing http://blah blah:8983/solr/collection/update?commit=true.
That'll force all the docs to be searchable. Does <1> still hold for
the document in question? Because this is exactly backwards of what
I'd expect. I'd
Is it possible to join documents and use a field from the "from"
documents to sort the results? For example, I need to search
"employees" and sort on different fields of the "company" each employee
is joined to. What would that query look like? We've looked at various
resources but haven't f
Hello,
Did you look into https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6234 ?
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Eric Katherman wrote:
> Is it possible to join documents and use a field from the "from" documents
> to sort the results? For example, I need to search "employees" and sort on
> differe
44 matches
Mail list logo
