give a option to batch N updates in either of the above case - I
did come across a presentation that talked about batching 10 updates for
replication at least, but I do not think this is the case.
- Asif
give a option to batch N updates in either of the above case - I
did come across a presentation that talked about batching 10 updates for
replication at least, but I do not think this is the case.
- Asif
high as 1000 updates a second (possibly
more in long run).
- Asif
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 4:21 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Update are batched, but it's on a per-request basis. So, if
> you're sending one document at a time you'll won't get any
> batching. If you se
.
- Asif
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Yeah, there's been talk of making this configurable, but there are
> more pressing priorities so far.
>
> So just to be clear, is this theoretical or practical? I know of several
> very
> high-performance
I am indexing the file using php curl library. I am stuck here with the code
echo "Stored in: " . "upload/" . $_FILES["file"]["name"];
$result=move_uploaded_file($_FILES["file"]["tmp_name"],"upload/" .
$_FILES["file"]["name"]);
if ($result == 1) echo "Upload done .";
$options = ge
Hi all,
Does anyone here have any experience hiring solr experts? Are there any
specific channels that you had good success with?
Thanks,
Asif
--
Asif Rahman
Lead Engineer - NewsCred
a...@newscred.com
http://platform.newscred.com
r/Support
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Asif Rahman wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Does anyone here have any experience hiring solr experts? Are there any
> > specific channels that you had good success with?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Asif
I am limited to filtering by a single criterion for each of my
queries.
2) I could leave the Solr schema unmodified and post-process the query.
This solution is less elegant than one that could be completely contained
within Solr. I also imagine that it would be less performant.
Any thoughts?
Hi Wojtek:
Sorry for the late, late reply. I haven't implemented this yet, but it is
on the (long) list of my todos. Have you made any progress?
Asif
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:42 PM, wojtekpia wrote:
>
> Hi Asif,
>
> Did you end up implementing this as a custom sort orde
core&rows=10&q=*:*%20_val_:"recip(rord(article_published_at),1,1000,1000)"^1&debugQuery=on
I've attached the result to this email.
Can anybody shed any light on this problem?
Thanks,
Asif
http://www.nabble.com/file/p22735009/result.xml result.xml
--
ens in the nightly
build. Any ideas on how to correct this? Unfortunately, it's not feasible
for me to only perform searches on optimized indices because we are doing
constant updates.
Thanks,
Asif
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
>
>
> Asif,
>
> Could it have something to do with
I have been intending to although I have been dragging my feet on it. I've
never opened a bug before so I'm not sure of the protocol. If you don't
mind, it would be great if you could send me a pm and point me in the right
direction.
Thanks,
Asif
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:30
index.
I've begun to write custom facet component that applies the IDF to the facet
counts, but I also wanted to check if anyone has experience using facets in
this way.
Thanks,
Asif
Hi again,
I guess nobody has used facets in the way I described below before. Do any
of the experts have any ideas as to how to do this efficiently and
correctly? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Asif
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Asif Rahman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
ve it. We first run
the MoreLikeThis query, then use the top N documents' unique ids as a filter
query for a second query. The performance is still acceptable, however our
index size is smaller than yours by an order of magnitude.
Regards,
Asif
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Kent Fi
count is analogous to the tf and I can access the
facet term idf's through the Similarity API.
Is my reasoning sound? Can you provide any guidance as to the best way to
implement this?
Thanks for your help,
Asif
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Jun 23
t; by Solr, they are still left on the disk if at least one hard link to
> that
> > file exists. If you are looking for how to clean old snapshots, you could
> > use the snapcleaner script.
> >
> > Is that what you wanted to do?
> >
> > --
> > Rega
What is the prevailing opinion on using solr 1.5 in a production
environment? I know that many people were using 1.4 in production for a
while before it became an official release.
Specifically I'm interested in using some of the new spatial features.
Thanks,
Asif
--
Asif Rahman
ng indexed
as sets of spatial tiles. In solr 1.5, I believe the correct implementation
would be as a field type with the new subfielding capabilities. Do you have
any thoughts about the approach I'm taking?
Asif
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2
r indexing
shape data?
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> On Feb 20, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Asif Rahman wrote:
>
> > One piece of functionality that I need is the ability to index a spatial
> > shape. I've begun implementing this for solr 1.4 using
I see that the entries for PorterStemFilterFactory,
EnglishPorterFilterFactory, and SnowballPorterFilterFactory have been
removed from the Analyzers, Tokenizers, and Token Filters wiki page. Is
there a reason for this?
Thanks,
asif
--
Asif Rahman
Lead Engineer - NewsCred
a...@newscred.com
ndering if I
would see a performance improvement by switching over to index-time
boosting.
Thanks,
Asif
--
Asif Rahman
Lead Engineer - NewsCred
a...@newscred.com
http://platform.newscred.com
ntain this term more than other documents
> whose titles may match other parts of this query"
>
> HTH
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Asif Rahman wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > What are the performance ramifications for using a function-base
e concern.
>
> -Jay
> http://lucidimagination.com
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Asif Rahman wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I should have been more specific in my initial post. I'm doing
> > date-based boosting on the documents in my index, so as to assign a
> h
//wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrRelevancyFAQ#How_can_I_boost_the_score_of_newer_documents
>
> Sorry, this doesn't answer your question, but does contribute the fact that
> some author of the FAQ at some point considered index-time boost not
> neccesarily unreasonable.
>
at 9:17 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Asif Rahman wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I should have been more specific in my initial post. I'm doing
> > date-based boosting on the documents in my index, so as to assign a
> higher
> > score to more rece
ery by boosting date ranges.
>
> You would group in date ranges: documents in September would be
> boosted 1.0, October 2.0, November 3.0 etc.
>
>
> On 6/5/10, Asif Rahman wrote:
> > Thanks everyone for your help so far. I'm still trying to get to the
> bottom
>
and iostat. Recently
> http://www.newrelic.com/solr.html has been released
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/how-to-test-solr-s-performance-tp881928p885025.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
28 matches
Mail list logo
