Hi Erick,
could you tell me or point me to the documentation on how the process around
raised JIRA issues usually works. I could not find anything that helped me.
Thanks in advance.
Best,
Marc
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Marc Linden
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. Juli 2020 11:35
An: solr-u
Below is the sample document
*{"filedA": 1,"filedB": "","filedC": "Sher","filedD":
"random","rules":[203,7843,43,283,6603,83,513,5303,243,103,323,163,403,363,5333,2483,313,703,523,503,563,8543,1003,483,1083,2043,6523,603,963,683,5353,763,443,643,743,723,1123,843,1243,1663,1803,1403,1783,7563,3
fq clauses are just like the q clause except for two things:
1> no scoring is done
2> the entire result set _can_ be stored in the filterCache.
so if a value isn’t indexed, it can’t be used in either an fq or q clause.
The thread you reference is under the assumption (and this is the default in
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/HowToContribute#HowToContribute-JIRAtips(ourissue/bugtracker)
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 5:30 AM, Marc Linden
> wrote:
>
> Hi Erick,
>
> could you tell me or point me to the documentation on how the process around
> raised JIRA issues usually works.
Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case?
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 08:02, Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> fq clauses are just like the q clause except for two things:
> 1> no scoring is done
> 2> the entire result set _can_ be stored in the filterCache.
>
> so if a value i
Your schema won’t tell us much at all about indexing speed, it’s the size of
the documents that’s the bigger factor.
Yes, you can increase the timeout, see:
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/format-of-solr-xml.html#format-of-solr-xml,
distribUpdateConnTimeout and distribUpdateSoTimeout.
We have following external file field type and field:
**
**
In solr official documentation is it mentioned that :
*"*The ExternalFileField type makes it possible to specify the values for a
field in a file outside the Solr index. *External fields are not
searchable. They can be used only for fun
Bump. Any one has an idea how to proceed here ?
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 5:41 PM krishan goyal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How do I enable replication of the model and feature store ?
>
> Thanks
> Krishan
>
Erick Erickson wrote
> Also, the default pint type is not as efficient for single-value searches
> like this, the trie fields are better. Trie support will be kept until
> there’s a good alternative for the single-value lookup with pint.
>
> So for what you’re doing, I’d change to TrieInt, docValu
Erik Hatcher-4 wrote
> Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case?
What is the rationale behind this type change to 'string'. How will it speed
up search/filtering? Will it not increase the index size. Since in general
string type takes more space storage then int (not
Adding more details here
I need some help on how to enable the solr LTR model and features on all
nodes of a solr cluster.
I am unable to replicate the model and the feature store though from any
master to its slaves with the replication API ? And unable to find any
documentation for the same. Is
Hello, Raj
I've just checked my Schema page for external file field
Solr version 8.3.1 gives only such parameters for externalFileField:
Field: fff
Field-Type:
org.apache.solr.schema.ExternalFileField
Flags:
UnInvertible
Omit Term Frequencies & Positions
Properties
√
√
Are u sure yo
Hi Mithun,
AFAIK, Solr 7.5.0 comes with ZooKeeper 3.4.11. At least, those are
the jar versions I see when I unpack a Solr 7.5.0 distribution. Where
are you seeing 1.3.11? There is no 1.3.11 ZooKeeper release as far as
I'm aware. There must be some confusion here.
Generally speaking, since 3.4
pints
1> take up less space (IIRC)
2> are better for range queries.
Best,
Erick
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:49 AM, raj.yadav wrote:
>
> Erik Hatcher-4 wrote
>> Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case?
>
> What is the rationale behind this type change to 'string'. Ho
Vadim Ivanov wrote
> Hello, Raj
>
> I've just checked my Schema page for external file field
>
> Solr version 8.3.1 gives only such parameters for externalFileField:
>
>
> Field: fff
>
> Field-Type:
>
> org.apache.solr.schema.ExternalFileField
>
>
> Flags:
>
> UnInvertible
>
> Omit Term F
Hello guys,
I have been using solr for my java application to carry out content search from
the saved docs.
I am facing a problem in searching for a word - 'load'
There are 2 cases, in 1st search is working good but in second case with the
same doc and same query - 'load' am not getting the resul
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 08:52, raj.yadav wrote:
>
> Erik Hatcher-4 wrote
>> Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case?
>
> What is the rationale behind this type change to 'string'. How will it speed
> up search/filtering? Will it not increase the index size. Since
: **
:
: **
...
: I was expecting that for field "fieldA" indexed will be marked as false and
: it will not be part of the index. But Solr admin "SCHEMA page" (we get this
: option after selecting collection name in the drop-down menu) is showing
: it as an indexed field (green tick mark
Chris Hostetter-3 wrote
> : *
> : class="solr.ExternalFileField" valType="float"/>
> *
> :
> : *
>
> *
> ...
> : I was expecting that for field "fieldA" indexed will be marked as false
> and
> : it will not be part of the index. But Solr admin "SCHEMA page" (we get
> this
> : option after
Hello,
I'm facing a situation where a transaction log file keeps growing and is never
deleted.
The setup is as follow:
- Solr 8.4.1
- SolrCloud with 2 nodes
- 1 collection, 1 shard
On one of the node I can see the tlog files having the expected behavior, that
is new tlog files being created an
I’m assuming you do not have CDCR configured, correct?
This is weird. Every hard commit should close the current tlog, open a new one
and delete old ones respecting numRecordsToKeep.
Are these NRT replicas or TLOG replicas? That shouldn’t make a lot of
difference, but might be a clue.
Your sol
There’s not much info to go on here. Try attaching &debug=query to the queries
and see if the parsed query returned is what you expect. If it is, the next
thing I’d do is attach
&debug=true&explainOther=id:id_of_doc_that_isnt_showing_up
This last will show you how scoring was done whether or no
The image is pulled from docker hub. After scanning the image from docker
hub, without any modification, this is the list of CVE we're getting.
Image ID CVE Package
Version Severity
Status
Indeed no CDCR.
All NRT replicas.
In the logs of the node with the big tlog, I don't see anything that looks
unusual to me.
Not sure how to see the commits though.
I can see some "Opening [Searcher@...]" logs, but these are related to the
softCommit, right?
Both replicas are in "active" state
I'm considering this closed. I couldn't get 7.7 working but 8.6 runs no
problem.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:13 PM Erick Erickson
wrote:
> Whoa:
>
> Starting embedded zookeeper? Almost all production systems have an
> external Zookeeper ensemble. Did your old system connect to an external
> Zooke
Hello,
I have schema and field definition as shown below:
TRACK_ID field contains "NUMERIC VALUE".
When I use sort on track_id (TRACK_ID desc) it is not working properly.
->I have below values in Track_ID
Doc1: "84806"
Doc2: "124561"
Ideally, when I use sort command, query result should
Hi,
It is because field is string and numbers are getting sorted
lexicographically.It has nothing to do with number of digits.
Thanks
Saurabh
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 11:24 AM Srinivas Kashyap
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have schema and field definition as shown below:
>
> omitNorms="true"/>
>
>
> /
I did this debug query thing and everything seems good but still am unable to
get the desired doc in my result.
"debug":{ "rawquerystring":"load",
"querystring":"load",
"parsedquery":"_text_:load",
"parsedquery_toString":"_text_:load",
Actually , CASE 2 in my
28 matches
Mail list logo
