Wow, thanks for Yonik 's quick reply! :)

That is what I want!

I just tried numTerms=500 then I ignored the useness of numTerms.




On 12/21/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2007 8:47 PM, Edward Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >  I tried it, but the "QTime" was beyond my tolerance.It costs me about
> 53s
> > on average to "show=schema".
>
> That's probably because Luke tries to find the top terms for each
> field by default.
> Try passing in numTerms=0
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> The index contains *5456360 *documents. The
> > index was optimized.Is there any more fast way? Information responsed as
> > follows: *
> > *   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
> > - <response>
> >
> > - <lst name="responseHeader">
> >
> >   <int name="status">0</int>
> >   <int name="QTime">50187</int>
> >   </lst>
> >   <str name="WARNING">This response format is experimental. It is likely
> to
> > change in the future.</str>
> > - <lst name="index">
> >
> >   <int name="numDocs">5456360</int>
> >   <int name="maxDoc">5456360</int>
> >   <int name="numTerms">25930032</int>
> >   <long name="version">1196480831539</long>
> >   <bool name="optimized">true</bool>
> >   <bool name="current">true</bool>
> >   <bool name="hasDeletions">false</bool>
> >   <str name="directory">
> >
> org.apache.lucene.store.FSDirectory:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :\LabHome\solrxhome\data\index</str>
> >
> >   <date name="lastModified">2007-12-02T11:26:54.625Z</date>
> >   </lst>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/20/07, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Check the LukeRequestHandler:
> > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/LukeRequestHandler
> > >
> > >
> > > Edward Zhang wrote:
> > > > I need to get all the fields of a remote solr istance. I try to
> parse
> > > the
> > > > xmlstream returned by "admin/get-file.jsp?file=schema.xml&core=core1
> ".Is
> > > > there any other way?
> > > >
> > > > BTW: The xmlstream contain 3 space lines in head and 2 in tail,
> which
> > > > cause some trouble to parse.
> > > >
> > > > Every reply appreciated.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to