?
>
> Did you check/try with the stock one? I recall correctly
> usePhrasehighlighter=true was working in the past for surround.
>
> Ahmet
>
>
>
> On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:25 AM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> Anyone?
>
&g
://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Common+Query+Parameters#CommonQueryParameters-ThetimeAllowedParameter
>
>
> -Hoss
> http://www.lucidworks.com/
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Project Manager - Intelligize
NorthBay Solutions
410-G4 Johar Town, Lahore
Off: +92-42-35290152
Cell: +92-302-8495621
return a single result.
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
;
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > Its a long video and I will definitely go through it but it seems this is
> > not possible with SOLR as it is?
> >
> > I just thought it would be qui
r storing DocValues for facet fields.
>
> some solr wiki docs:
>
> https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems?highlight=%28%28SolrPerformanceFactors%29%29
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net&g
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Salman Akram
> wrote:
> > 1- SOLR 4.6
> > 2- We do but right now I am talking about plain keyword queries just
> sorted
> > by date. Once this is better will start looking into caches which we
> > already changed a little.
://www.storagereview.com/micron_p420m_enterprise_pcie_ssd_review
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
at 6:31 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 3/18/2014 7:12 AM, Salman Akram wrote:
> > Is there a rule of thumb for ideal block size for SSDs for large indexes
> > (in hundreds of GBs)? Read performance is of top importance for us and we
> > can sacrifice the space a little...
>
looking at all the pros/cons decided to stick with
Windows. Wasn't rude ;)
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 3/18/2014 7:39 AM, Salman Akram wrote:
> > This SSD default size seems to be 4K not 16K (as can be seen below).
> >
> > Bytes Per S
are using some top notch servers already.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
> Salman Akram [salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net] wrote:
>
> [Hundreds of GB index]
>
> > http://www.storagereview.com/micron_p420m_enterprise_pcie_ssd_review
>
> May I ask why
Anyone?
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> Below is one of the sample slow query that takes mins!
>
> ((stock or share*) w/10 (sale or sell* or sold or bought or buy* or
> purchase* or repurchase*)) w/10 (executive or
of course, you could shard your index (or add more shards if
> you're already sharding) if you really _must_ support these kinds of
> queries and can't work around the problem.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Salman Akram
> wrote:
> &g
chase*)) w/10 (executive or director)
> >>
> >
> > I'm not familiar with this w/10 notation. What does this mean,
> > and what parser(s) supports this syntax?
> >
> > Kuro
> >
> >
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
For now I am going with 64kb and results seem good. Thanks for the useful
feedback.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 3/19/2014 12:09 AM, Salman Akram wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. The articles were really useful but still seems I
>> have
>>
; An example would help explaining difference between W and N;
> some readers may not understand what "ordered" and "unordered"
> in this context mean.
>
>
> Kuro
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
uld be great!
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Anyone?
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> With reference to this
> thread<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/lucene-solr-user/200903.mbox/%3c856ac15f0903272054q2dbdbd19kea3c5ba9e105b...@mail.gmail.com%3E>I
&g
%3DGcaFqsQ3mViF%2Bhn24ArDtT%3D7kpALtVHzA%40mail.gmail.com%3E#archives
>
> I never followed through, however.
>
> -Luis
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > Anyone?
> >
> >
for TermsEnum
> returned from MultiTermQuery.getTermsEnum(), wrapping an actual TermsEnums
> is the good way, to apply queries injecting time limiting wrapper
> TermsEnum, you might consider override methods like
> SolrQueryParserBase.newWildcardQuery(Term) or post process the quer
as a
> > performance problem, usually my questions revolve around figuring out
> > whether you have enough RAM. Here's where that conversation ends up:
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrPerformanceProblems
> >
> > I think I've probably mentioned this to you before on another thread.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shawn
> >
> >
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
om the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Search Analytics
> Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > This is quite an old discussion. Wanted to check any new comparisons
> after
> > SO
fixed?
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Anyone?
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> We are having an issue in Phrase highlighter with Surround Query Parser
> e.g. *"first thing" w/100 "you must" *brings correct results but also
> highli
tly and with different
> designs for Solr and Elasticsearch. I would be surprised if memory
> overhead and performance were about the same for this functionality.
>
> - Toke Eskildsen, State and University Library, Denmark
>
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
are not using SOLR Sharding.
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
info you need? Thanks
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Andrea Gazzarini wrote:
> Hi, I did moreless the same but didn't get that behaviour...could you give
> us more details
>
> Best,
> Gazza
> On 5 Dec 2013 06:54, "Salman Akram"
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
:05 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> I missed one imp piece of info. Due to large size we have indexed the date
> with Common Grams. All of the words in slow search are in common grams and
> when I debug it, they query is made properly with common gram
)
Contents:"(only only_be) be"
*SOLR 1.4.1 (takes 1 sec)*
{!surround}
{!surround}
Contents:only_be
Contents:only_be
P.S: The other issue still remains there that why is it not utilizing
multiple cpu cores.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysol
ion of Solr have been asked before on the
> list, the consensus is that you probably need to re-tune your configuration
> (starting with a Solr 4 basic config) since Solr 4 is so different under
> the hood from 1.x
>
>
> On 5 December 2013 09:11, Salman Akram
> wrote:
>
> > Mo
gt; and what is your merge policy for the index?
>
> Upgrades from such an old version of Solr have been asked before on the
> list, the consensus is that you probably need to re-tune your configuration
> (starting with a Solr 4 basic config) since Solr 4 is so different under
> the ho
it does look like
> some logic has changed there.
>
>
> On 5 December 2013 12:38, Salman Akram
> wrote:
>
> > Here is the response to your 2 questions:
> >
> > 1- Started from fresh Solr 4 config and modified custom stuff.
> >
> > 2- Index is same and
s too. Can someone help?
SOLR 4.6 (takes 20 secs)
{!surround}
{!surround}
MultiPhraseQuery(Contents:"(only only_be) be")
Contents:"(only only_be) be"
SOLR 1.4.1 (takes 1 sec)
{!surround}
{!surround}
Contents:only_be
Contents:only_be--
Regards,
Salman Akram
und no analysis is applied at query time.
> I suspect that surround query parser is not kicking in. You should see
> SrndQuery or something like at parser query section.
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 9, 2013 6:24 AM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrot
the analysis chain of the field, see <
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SurroundQueryParser#Limitations>. In short,
> you're going to have to do some work to get common grams factored into a
> surround query (such as maybe calling to the analysis request hander to
> "parse&quo
ryFilter.html
>
>
> http://khaidoan.wikidot.com/solr-common-gram-filter
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 6:43 AM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> We used that syntax in 1.4.1 when Surround was not part of SOLR and has to
> regi
that there is no delta between master and slave? We tried to do it but
still the slave replicated from master.
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
We do. We have a lot of updates/deletes every day and a weekly optimization
definitely gives a considerable improvement so don't see a downside to it
except the complete replication part which is not an issue on local
network.
Apologies for the late response as this mail was lost somewhere in filters.
Issue was that CommonGramsQueryFilterFactory should be used for searching
and CommonGramsFilterFactory for indexing. We were using
CommonGramsFilterFactory for both due to which it was not dropping single
tokens for common
Unfortunately we can't do sharding right now.
If we optimize on master and slave separately the file names and sizes are
same. I think it's just the version no that is different. Maybe if there
was a to copy master version to slave that would resolve this issue?
ulate that). Why don't just stop looking for more results lets say
after it finds 100 docs? Possible??
e.g. Something similar that we can do in MySQL:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ( (SELECT * FROM table where 1 = 1) LIMIT 100) Alias
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
for complex queries but
that's not an inverted index so not sure how it works in SOLR...
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Gora Mohanty wrote:
> On 7 March 2014 15:18, Salman Akram
> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > Is it possible to get partial counts in SOLR? The idea is
ormal data issues and
best practices in case primary goes down? We would also like to shift back
to primary as soon as its back.
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
master in SOLR
or a good guide to upgrade a slave to master?
Thanks
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 9/8/2014 9:54 PM, Salman Akram wrote:
> > We have a redundant data center in case the primary goes down. Currently
> we
> > have 1 master and multiple s
lrCloud doesn't seem practical in quite a few
situations.
Thanks again!!
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 9/9/2014 8:46 AM, Salman Akram wrote:
> > You mean 3 'data centers' or 'nodes'? I am thinking if we have 2 nodes on
> > primar
Anyone?
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> So realistically speaking you cannot have SolrCloud work for 2 data
> centers as a redundant solution because no matter how many nodes you add
> you still would need at least 1
esn't give any error) but they just time out. So even though we have a
fail over system implemented but we don't have a way to distinguish if
these are real time out queries OR due to OOM.
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
; > config error behaviors
> > > > CATALINA_OPTS="$CATALINA_OPTS -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError
> > > > -XX:HeapDumpPath=$TOMCAT_DIR/temp/tomcat-dump.hprof
> > > > -XX:OnError=$TOMCAT_DIR/bin/java_error.sh
> > > > -XX:OnOutOfMemoryError=$TOMC
;
> or
>
>
> 2) if you keep track of the port (which all my Windows scripts do), then
> you can do:
>
>
> For /f "tokens=5" %%j in ('netstat -aon ^| find /i "listening" ^| find
> ":%SOLR_PORT%"') do (
>
> taskkill /t /f /pid
the data which has already been
> written to disk will be correct, but nothing beyond that. That's why it
> is considered better to crash the program and restart it for OOME.
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
>
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
ery) may just come back and you get into an
> oscillating situation of restart after restart. i generally want a human
> involved when error conditions which should be outliers (like OOM) are
> happening
>
>
>
> From: Salman Akram
>
d it
have any impact on performance/size?
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
the max rows becomes
useless. So if there a way to disable sorting? e.g. it returns the rows as
it finds without any order?
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Cell: +92-321-4391210
hat you want (of
> course that doesn't mean there isn't).
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to limit my SOLR results so that it stops f
the max rows becomes
useless. So if there a way to disable sorting? e.g. it returns the rows as
it finds without any order?
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Senior Software Engineer - Tech Lead
80-A, Abu Bakar Block, Garden Town, Pakistan
Cell: +92-321-4391210
use any complex features however (faceting or what not) then it
> will still most likely need to scan all docs.
>
>
> -Hoss
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
!
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Senior Software Engineer - Tech Lead
80-A, Abu Bakar Block, Garden Town, Pakistan
Cell: +92-321-4391210
und 60% is the PRX
positions file).
Also in Luke it shows 'f' (omitTF) flag for strings but not for text fields.
Any ideas what's going on? Thanks!
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Senior Software Engineer - Tech Lead
80-A, Abu Bakar Block, Garden Town, Pakistan
Cell: +92-321-4391210
nalyzed and Tokenized for searching.
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From my understanding TVF file stores the Term Vectors (Positions/Offset)
> so if no field has Field.TermVector set (default is NO) so it shouldn'
e you are looking at is old (i.e. not part
> of
> your active index)?
>
> Otis
>
> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
&
dex dir listing (ls -lah) + the field type and
> field
> definitions from your schema.xml?
>
> Otis
>
> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message
> > F
atext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Sun, January 16, 2011 2:26:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: TVF file
&
normal index which just searches on
"a b".
Note: Both words are in the words list of CommonGrams.
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Senior Software Engineer - Tech Lead
80-A, Abu Bakar Block, Garden Town, Pakistan
Cell: +92-321-4391210
Ok sorry it was my fault.
I wasn't using CommonGramsQueryFilter for query, just had Filter for
indexing. The query seems fine now.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have made an index using CommonGrams. N
gt;
>> -
>> Thanx:
>> Grijesh
>>
> Thanks,
> so tell me if i m wrong... i need to modify my schema.xml to add lowercase
> filter and reindex my content?
>
>
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Senior Software Engineer - Tech Lead
80-A, Abu Bakar Block, Garden Town, Pakistan
Cell: +92-321-4391210
from TypeB Users? Just to tell Solr "include all TypeB Users in
> the
> (given) FilterQuery" (or something in that direction)?
>
> If so, what's the Name of this Filter/Function/Feature? :)
>
> Don't hesitate to ask, if my question/description is weird!
>
> Thanks
> Stefan
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
> is a bit too much - but combining both is working fine!
>
> not seen the wood for the trees =)
> Thanks, Stefan
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Salman Akram <
> salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
>
> > You can index a field which can the User type
way i.e. ignore
CommonGrams.
Does anyone know how to combine both these features?
Also once they are combined (hopefully they will be) would phrase proximity
search work fine?
Thanks
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Anyone?
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to use CommonGrams with SOLR - 1604 patch but doesn't seem to
> work.
>
> If I don't add {!complexphrase} it uses CommonGramsQueryFilterFact
RAM? Also the index is updated
every hour.
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
00 PM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know this is a subjective topic but from what I have read it seems more
> RAM should be spared for OS caching and much less for SOLR/Tomcat even on a
> dedicated SOLR server.
>
> Can s
ge
> and also by mining the logs, looking particularly for cache evictions.
> Since
> cache
> usage is so dependent on the particular installation and usage pattern
> (particularly
> sorting and faceting), "general" advice is hard to give.
>
> Hope this he
theoretically ideal proportion b/w
> > them for a dedicated Windows server with 32GB RAM? Also the index is
> > updated every hour.
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
d be spared for OS caching and much less for SOLR/Tomcat even on
> a
> > dedicated SOLR server.
> >
> > Can someone give me an idea about the theoretically ideal proportion b/w
> > them for a dedicated Windows server with 32GB RAM? Also the index is
> > updated every hour.
>
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
need both functionality?
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
It seems SurroundQueryParser is in Lucene NOT Solr. So does this mean I will
have to integrate it in Lucene and update that jar file in SOLR?
Thanks
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Ahmet Arslan wrote:
>
> --- On Fri, 1/21/11, Salman Akram
> wrote:
>
> > From: Salman
long time so
trying to see whether its even worthy or not.
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Just to add one thing, in case it makes a difference.
Max document size on which highlighting needs to be done is few hundred kb's
(in file system). In index its compressed so should be much smaller. Total
documents are more than 100 million.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Salman
s coz 150GB
is not too big for one drive/server with 32GB Ram.
Cache warming is a good option too but the index get updated every hour so
not sure how much would that help.
What are the other main tips that can help in performance optimization of
the above queries?
Thanks
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
query takes 2 min on SAS 10K RPM what would its approx time be on a good SSD
(everything else same)?
Thanks!
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:20 +0100, Salman Akram wrote:
> > Cache warming is a good option too but the index get updated e
Anyone?
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:57 AM, Salman Akram <
salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net> wrote:
> Just to add one thing, in case it makes a difference.
>
> Max document size on which highlighting needs to be done is few hundred
> kb's (in file system). In index its
gt;
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Grant Ingersoll
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Wed, January 26, 2011 10:44:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: Highlighting with/without Term Vectors
> >
> >
> > On Jan 24, 2011, at 2:42 PM, Salman Akram wrot
t; It sounds like this will make warmup take a long time, assuming you
> have
> more than a handful distinct queries in your logs.
>
> Otis
>
> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
&g
enough for your 150 GB index?
> It depends on queries and distribution of matching documents, for example.
> What's yours like?
>
> Otis
>
> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 3:33:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: Performance optimization of Proximity/Wildcard searches
> >
> > I know so we are not really using it fo
>
> Otis
>
> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Fri, February 4, 2011 3:
without TV.
>
> Otis
>
> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Sent: Fri, Fe
w much you auto-warm the caches.
>
> Otis
>
> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: Salman Akram
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache
e should be a way as this is a very common scenario.
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
> * http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FilterQueryGuidance
>
> Regards
> Stefan
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Salman Akram
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I know Filter Query is really useful due to caching but I am confused
> about
> > how it filter results.
> &
, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Salman Akram
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I know Filter Query is really useful due to caching but I am confused
> about
> > how it filter results.
> >
> > Lets say I have following criteria
> >
>
.
Any idea whats going on?
--
Regards,
Salman Akram
Principal Software Engineer - Tech Lead
NorthBay Solutions
410-G4 Johar Town, Lahore
Off: +92-42-35290152
Cell: +92-321-4391210 -- +92-300-4009941
you by any chance optimizing?
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Salman Akram
> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > We have created index with CommonGrams and the final size is around
> 370GB.
> > Everything is working fine but now when we add
o
> index
> > it
> > > takes forever (almost 12 hours)...seems to change all the segments file
> > in a
> > > commit.
> > >
> > > The same commit used to take few mins with normal index.
> > >
> > > Any idea whats going on?
> > &
We used JRockit with SOLR1.4 as default JVM had mem issues (not only it was
consuming more mem but didn't restrict to the max mem allocated to tomcat -
jrockit did restrict to max mem). However, JRockit gives an error while using
it with SOLR3.4/3.5. Any ideas, why?
*** This Message Has Been Se
c. -- Where Influence Isn’t a Game.
> http://www.appinions.com
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Salman Akram
> wrote:
> > We used JRockit with SOLR1.4 as default JVM had mem issues (not only it
> was consuming more mem but didn't restrict to the max mem allocated t
96 matches
Mail list logo
