Faceting search issues

Hi, When I query solr using faceted search to check for duplicates using the following , 'http://localhost:8983/solr/core/select?q=*:*=true=name=2`, I get the following response with no facet data. {"responseHeader": {"status": 0,"QTime": 541,"params": {"q": "*:*",

Re: Faceting and Grouping Performance Degradation in Solr 5

Thanks again for your work on honoring the facet.method. I have an observation that I would like to share and get your feedback on if possible. I performance tested Solr 5.5.2 with various facet queries and the only way I get comparable results to Solr 4.8.1 is when I expungeDeletes. Is it

Re: JNDI settings

I did set up JNDI for DIH once, and you have to tweak the jetty setup. Of course, solr should have its own jetty instance, the old way of being just a war is not true anymore. I don't remember where, but there should be some instructions somewhere, it took me an afternoon to set it up fine.

Re: issue transplanting standalone core into solrcloud (plus upgrade)

I guess there is no other way than reindex: - of course, not all fields are stored, that would have been too easy - it might (??) work if as Jan says I build a custom solr version with removed IntFields added etc, but going down this rabbithole sounds too risky, too much work for what, not sure it

Re: issue transplanting standalone core into solrcloud (plus upgrade)

If all the fields in your current schema has stored=“true”, you can try to export the full index to an XML file which can then be imported into 6.1. If some fields are not stored you will only be able to recover the inverted index representation of that data, which may not be enough to recreate

Re: issue transplanting standalone core into solrcloud (plus upgrade)

On 9/26/2016 6:28 AM, xavi jmlucjav wrote: > Yes, I had to change some fields, basically to use TrieIntField etc > instead > of the old IntField. I was assuming by using the IndexUpgrader to upgrade > the data to 6.1, the older IntField would work with the new TrieIntField. > But I have tried

Re: Challenges with new Solrcloud Backup/Restore functionality

Hi Stephen, regarding #1, can you verify following steps during backup/restore? - Before backup command, make sure to run a "hard" commit on the original collection. The backup operation will capture only hard committed data. - After restore command, check the Solr web UI to verify that all

Re: -field1:value1 OR field2:value2

On 9/26/2016 3:56 AM, Sandeep Khanzode wrote: > Hi Alex, It seems that this is not an issue with AND clause. For > example, if I do ... field1:value1 AND -field2:value2 ... the results > seem to be an intersection of both. Is this an issue with OR? Which is > which we replace it with an implicit

Re: How to retrieve parent documents without a nested structure (block-join)

Thanks Alex, this has been extremely helpful. There's one doubt though. The query returns expected result if I use "select" or "query" request handler, but fails for others. Here's the debug output from "/select" using edismax.

Re: issue transplanting standalone core into solrcloud (plus upgrade)

Better keep your old schema unchanged if you want to use an old index. The upgrader does not change field type for you. If the old IntField does not exist in 6.x you're out of luck, may try to build a custom version with the old field types as addons.. Sendt fra min iPhone > Den 26. sep. 2016

Re: Challenges with new Solrcloud Backup/Restore functionality

#2 - that's great news. I'll try to patch it in and test it out. #1 - In all cases, the backup and restore both appear successful. There are no failure messages for any of the shards, no warnings, etc - I didn't even realize at first that data was missing until I noticed differences in some

Re: Spellcheck: using multiple dictionaries (DirectSolrSpellChecker and FileBasedSpellChecker)

Ok, thanks Andrey. On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 at 00:13 Kydryavtsev Andrey wrote: > Hello, Ryan > > > As it obvious from exception message - you are forced to use same instance > of Analyzer to all of spell checkers which should be conjuncted. > > How this instance is initialized

Re: Spellcheck: using multiple dictionaries (DirectSolrSpellChecker and FileBasedSpellChecker)

Hello, Ryan As it obvious from exception message - you are forced to use same instance of Analyzer to all of spell checkers which should be conjuncted. How this instance is initialized inside SpellChecker instance could be found  here -

org.apache.lucene.index.CorruptIndexException: checksum failed

hi all i'm using solr, and hdfs(cdh) to mount solr version : 4.10.1 cdh version : 5.3 here is the solr console log： auto commit error...:org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Error opening new searcher at org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.openNewSearcher(SolrCore.java:1565) at

Re: -field1:value1 OR field2:value2

Sure. Noted.  Thanks for the link ...  SRK On Monday, September 26, 2016 8:29 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: Please do not cross post to multiple lists, it's considered bad etiquette. Solr does not implement strict boolean logic, please read:

Re: json.facet without a facet ...

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Bram Van Dam wrote: > Howdy, > > I realize that this might be a strange question, so please bear with me > here. > > I've been replacing my usage of the old Stats Component (stats=true, > stats.field=foo, [stats.facet=bar]) with the new

Re: -field1:value1 OR field2:value2

Please do not cross post to multiple lists, it's considered bad etiquette. Solr does not implement strict boolean logic, please read: https://lucidworks.com/blog/2011/12/28/why-not-and-or-and-not/ Best, Erick On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:58 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: >

remove user defined duplicate from search result

Hi, I am try to remove user defined duplicate from search result. like below documents match the query. when query return, I try to remove doc3 from result since it has duplicate guid with doc1. Id (uniqueKey) guid doc1 G1 doc2 G2 doc3 G1 To do this, I generate exclude list based guid

RE: remove user defined duplicate from search result

Sorry, the table is missing. Update below email with table. -Original Message- From: Yongtao Liu [mailto:y...@commvault.com] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 10:47 AM To: 'solr-user@lucene.apache.org' Subject: remove user defined duplicate from search result Hi, I am try to remove user

json.facet without a facet ...

Howdy, I realize that this might be a strange question, so please bear with me here. I've been replacing my usage of the old Stats Component (stats=true, stats.field=foo, [stats.facet=bar]) with the new json.facet sugar. This has been a great improvement on all fronts. However, with the stats

Re: issue transplanting standalone core into solrcloud (plus upgrade)

Hi Shawn/Jan, On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 9/25/2016 4:24 AM, xavi jmlucjav wrote: > > Everything went well, no errors when solr restarted, the collections > shows > > the right number of docs. But when I try to run a query, I get: > > > >

Re: Retaining a field value during DataImport

Hi, Thanks, I will look into options specified. On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > Transformers do not see what's in the Solr index, they are too early > in the processing chain. > > You could probably do something by exporting that field's

Re: Retaining a field value during DataImport

Transformers do not see what's in the Solr index, they are too early in the processing chain. You could probably do something by exporting that field's value, caching it and injecting it back with transformer from that cache. Messy but doable. UpdateRequestProcessor would be able to do it, but

Retaining a field value during DataImport

Hi All, We use DataImportHandler to import data from Redshift. We want to overwrite some 250M existing records (that has around 350 columns) while retaining the field value of only one column in those 250M records. The reason is, that one column is a multi-valued and requires a costly query to

Re: JNDI settings

On 21/09/2016 9:15pm, Aristedes Maniatis wrote: > On 13/09/2016 1:29am, Aristedes Maniatis wrote: >> I am using Solr 5.5 and wanting to add JNDI settings to Solr (for data >> import). I'm new to Solr Cloud setup (previously I was running Solr running >> as a custom bundled war) so I can't figure

Re: issue transplanting standalone core into solrcloud (plus upgrade)

Did you change the tag in your solrconfig.xml? You could try to let it stay at 3.6 and let compatibility mode kick in where applicable. -- Jan Høydahl, search solution architect Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com > 25. sep. 2016 kl. 12.24 skrev xavi jmlucjav : > > Hi, > > I

Query validation before the parser.

Hi, Queries like wildcards are expensive in terms of execution time and resources. Also there could be possible errors in user entered queries. I am trying to write a query validation feature which checks for wrong grouping, not supported fields, special characters in query without escaping. The

Re: -field1:value1 OR field2:value2

I don't remember specifically :-(. Search the archives http://search-lucene.com/ or follow-up on Solr Users list. Remember to mention the version of Solr, as there were some bugs/features/fixes with OR, I think. Regards, Alex. Newsletter and resources for Solr beginners and intermediates:

Re: -field1:value1 OR field2:value2

Hi Alex, It seems that this is not an issue with AND clause. For example, if I do ... field1:value1 AND -field2:value2  ... the results seem to be an intersection of both. Is this an issue with OR? Which is which we replace it with an implicit (*:* NOT)? SRK On Monday, September 26, 2016

Re: -field1:value1 OR field2:value2

Yup. That works. So does (*:* NOT ...) Thanks, Alex.  SRK On Monday, September 26, 2016 3:03 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: Try field2:value2 OR (*:* -field1=value1) There is a magic in negative query syntax that breaks down when it gets more complex. It's been

Re: -field1:value1 OR field2:value2

Try field2:value2 OR (*:* -field1=value1) There is a magic in negative query syntax that breaks down when it gets more complex. It's been discussed on the mailing list a bunch of times, though the discussions are hard to find by title. Regards, Alex. Newsletter and resources for Solr

-field1:value1 OR field2:value2

Hi, If I query for  -field1=value1 ... I get, say, 100 records and if I query for  field2:value2 ... I may get 200 records I would assume that if I query for  -field1:value1 OR field2:value2 ... I should get atleast 100 records (assuming they overlap, if not, upto 300 records). I am assuming

Re: How to retrieve parent documents without a nested structure (block-join)

This seems to work against the techproducts example in 6.2: ({!join from=manu_id_s to=id}ipod) (name:GB18030 -manu_id_s:*) Two clauses, first one does join and parent mapping. The second one looks at the records that don't have the mapping key at all and run the match against that. In your case,