On 4/30/2018 2:56 PM, Michael Joyner wrote:
> Based on experience, 2x head room is room is not always enough,
> sometimes not even 3x, if you are optimizing from many segments down
> to 1 segment in a single go.
In all situations a user is likely to encounter in the wild, having
enough extra disk
On 4/30/2018 12:03 PM, Monica Skidmore wrote:
> As we try to set up an external load balancer to go between two clusters,
> though, we still have some questions. We need a way to determine that a node
> is still 'alive' and should be in the load balancer, and we need a way to
> know that a new
Thank you all. I have around 70% free space in production. I will compute for
the additional fields.
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse any typos.
> On Apr 30, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> There's really no good way to purge deleted documents from the index
> other than to wait
"We need a way to determine that a node is still 'alive' and should be
in the load balancer, and we need a way to know that a new node is now
available and fully ready with its replicas to add to the load
balancer."
Why? If a Solr node is running but the replicas aren't up yet, it'll
pass the requ
There's really no good way to purge deleted documents from the index
other than to wait until merging happens.
Optimize/forceMerge and expungeDeletes both suffer from the problem
that they create massive segments that then stick around for a very
long time, see:
https://lucidworks.com/2017/10/13/s
Based on experience, 2x head room is room is not always enough,
sometimes not even 3x, if you are optimizing from many segments down to
1 segment in a single go.
We have however figured out a way that can work with as little as 51%
free space via the following iteration cycle:
public void so
You need 2X the minimum index size in disk space anyway, so don’t worry about
keeping the indexes as small as possible. Worry about having enough headroom.
If your indexes are 250 GB, you need 250 GB of free space.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (m
Thanks Erick/Deepak.
The cloud is running on baremetal (128 GB/24 cpu).
Is there an option to run a compact on the data files to make the size
equal on both the clouds? I am trying find all the options before I add the
new fields into the production cloud.
Thanks
AA
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:4
This may not be the reason but i noticed you have FlattenGraphFilterFactory
at query time while its only required at index time. I would suggest to go
Analysis tab if not checked already.
Thnx
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Hodder, Rick wrote:
> I upgraded from SOLR 4.10 to SOLR 7.1
>
> In t
I upgraded from SOLR 4.10 to SOLR 7.1
In the core, I have a string field called "company" and string field "year",
and I have an index on company called IDX_Company.
Here is the definition of the company field, and the definition of text_general
in my schema in 4.10
Thank you, Erick. That confirms our understanding for a single cluster, or
once we select a node from one of the two clusters to query.
As we try to set up an external load balancer to go between two clusters,
though, we still have some questions. We need a way to determine that a node
is sti
Multiple clusters with the same dataset aren't load-balanced by Solr,
you'll have to accomplish that from "outside", e.g. something that sends
queries to each cluster.
_Within_ a cluster (collection), as long as a request gets to any Solr
node, sub-requests are distributed with an internal softwar
Sujeet, what do you mean by migrating? E.g., are you moving your data from
Cloudera CDH to Azure HDI? Are migrating your application code written on
top of Cloudera CDH to run on top of Azure HDI? As far as I know, Azure HDI
does not include Solr, so if your application on top of Cloudera CDH is
us
We are migrating from a master-slave configuration to Solr cloud (7.3) and have
questions about the preferred way to load balance between the two clusters. It
looks like we want to use a load balancer that directs queries to any of the
server nodes in either cluster, trusting that node to handl
Anthony:
You are probably seeing the results of removing deleted documents from
the shards as they're merged. Even on replicas in the same _shard_,
the size of the index on disk won't necessarily be identical. This has
to do with which segments are selected for merging, which are not
necessarily c
thank you Shawn,
We will go ahead and migrate to solr 7.3.0 and run as a stand alone
appliance and so I do not need to worry about the tomcat issue.
--
Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
Could you please also give the machine details of the two clouds you are
running?
Deepak
"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are
treated. Please stop cruelty to Animals, become a Vegan"
+91 73500 12833
deic...@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deicool
Lin
Hi Shawn,
The cloud is running version 6.2.1. with ClassicIndexSchemaFactory
The sum of size from admin UI on all the shards is around 265 G vs 224 G
between the two clouds.
I created the collection using "numShards" so compositeId router.
If you need more information, please let me know.
Than
On 4/30/2018 9:51 AM, Antony A wrote:
I am running two separate solr clouds. I have 8 shards in each with a total
of 300 million documents. Both the clouds are indexing the document from
the same source/configuration.
I am noticing there is a difference in the size of the collection between
them
Hi all,
I am trying to find if anyone has suggestion for the below.
I am running two separate solr clouds. I have 8 shards in each with a total
of 300 million documents. Both the clouds are indexing the document from
the same source/configuration.
I am noticing there is a difference in the size
On 4/30/2018 4:32 AM, THADC wrote:
First of all, I have a second (unrelated) question on this solr user group.
I hope it is ok to have more than one question being asked at the same time
against this group. Please let me know if not.
Anyway, I have a need to keep our existing solr version 4.7 in
Thanks Erick!
Problem solved.
De: Erick Erickson
Enviado: lunes, 30 de abril de 2018 12:07
Para: solr-user
Asunto: Re: Missing bin folder
This was only added in 4.10, see: SOLR-3617
Best,
Erick
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Lucía Sarni Cornes
wrote:
> I wan
This was only added in 4.10, see: SOLR-3617
Best,
Erick
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Lucía Sarni Cornes
wrote:
> I want to use Solr 4.8.1, and I download it from here but it's missing the
> bin folder https://archive.apache.org/dist/lucene/solr/4.8.1/
> This seems to be the case for other v
The error message you were getting was that "multiValued" must be camel-cased
multivalued
.vs.
multiValued
This last one is correct.
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:25 AM, THADC
wrote:
> ok, I have fixed my issue. I needed to delete the config set first, so I did:
>
> http://localhost:8983/solr/admin/
ok, I have fixed my issue. I needed to delete the config set first, so I did:
http://localhost:8983/solr/admin/configs?action=DELETE&name=timConfig
, then I ran:
./bin/solr zk upconfig -n timConfig -d
/home/tim/solr-7.3.0/server/solr/configsets/timConfig/ -z localhost:2181
, then tried creati
I want to use Solr 4.8.1, and I download it from here but it's missing the bin
folder https://archive.apache.org/dist/lucene/solr/4.8.1/
This seems to be the case for other versions on the archive.
I did installed the last version using brew but I need an older version that
has the example/solr/
Hello
can i update partial document of parent help me
Thanks
Krishna Kumar Sharma
Hi Prateek,
with query and FQ Solr is expected to score a document only if that document
is a match of all the FQ results intersected with the query results [1].
Then re-ranking happens, so effectively, only the top K intersected
documents will be re-ranked.
If you are curious about the code, this
Hi Raymond,
as Charlie correctly stated, the input format is not that important, what is
important is to focus on your requirements and properly design a
configuration and data model to solve them.
Extracting the information for such a data format is not going to be
particularly challenging ( as i
Hello,
First of all, I have a second (unrelated) question on this solr user group.
I hope it is ok to have more than one question being asked at the same time
against this group. Please let me know if not.
Anyway, I have a need to keep our existing solr version 4.7 instance running
while I test t
sorry, I found the zookeeper group and got my question answered there. I will
be more careful in the future.
--
Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
thanks, I got further this time after first uploading. I ran:
./bin/solr zk upconfig -n timConfig -d
/home/tim/solr-7.3.0/server/solr/configsets/timConfig/ -z localhost:2181
However, I then got an error when trying to create the collections again:
responseHeader
status 0
QTime 3255
I'm running Solr 7.2.1 on Windows via Cygwin.
I've installed Solr7.2.1 but I'm getting a 404 when trying to run the
dataimport handler:
http://localhost:8983/solr/tt-giftsamplecatalog/dataimport?command=full-import
After calling this URL, I don't see any logging in the console.
The error in my br
On 29/04/2018 22:25, Raymond Xie wrote:
Thank you Alessandro,
It looks like my requirement is vague, but indeed I already indicated my
data is in FIX format, which is a format, here is an example in
the Wiki link in my original question:
8=FIX.4.2 | 9=178 | 35=8 | 49=PHLX | 56=PERS |
52=200711
34 matches
Mail list logo