I am trying to migrate some old code that used to retrieve DocIdSets from
filters, but with Filters being deprecated in Lucene 5.x I am trying to
move away from those classes but I'm not sure the right way to do this
now. Are there any examples of doing this?
t we can remove
fields that particular user shouldn't be able to see.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Rick Leir wrote:
> Jamie, what is the use case? Cheers -- Rick
>
> On August 23, 2017 11:30:38 AM MDT, Jamie Johnson
> wrote:
> >I thought I had asked this previously, but I
I thought I had asked this previously, but I can't find reference to it
now. I am interested in using a custom StoredFieldVisitor in Solr and
after spelunking through the code for a little it seems that there is no
easy extension point that supports me doing so. I am currently on Solr 4.x
(moving
H/solr/db/
> conf/managed-schema#L625
>
> Regards,
> Alex.
>
> Newsletter and resources for Solr beginners and intermediates:
> http://www.solr-start.com/
>
>
> On 24 August 2016 at 04:22, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > I have a need to build custom field types
his is the best way, but I wonder given the inability to plugin
a custom request writer (or something similar). Am I barking up the wrong
tree?
On Aug 23, 2016 5:22 PM, "Jamie Johnson" wrote:
> I have a need to build custom field types that store additional metadata
> at the field
I have a need to build custom field types that store additional metadata at
the field level in a payload. I was thinking that I could satisfy this by
building a custom UpdateRequest that captured this additional information
in XML, but I am not really sure how to get at this additional information
is not necessary ie q=foo +bar {!lucene
> v=$subq}&subq=my_awesome:less%20pain&
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > When using nested queries of the form q=_query_:"my_awesome:query", what
> > needs to be escaped in the query
When using nested queries of the form q=_query_:"my_awesome:query", what
needs to be escaped in the query portion? Just using the admin UI the
following works
_query_:"+field\\:with\\:special"
_query_:"+field\\:with\\~special"
_query_:"+field\\:with\\&special"
but the same doesn't work for quote
Is there an equivalent of the ESInputFormat (
https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch-hadoop/blob/03c056142a5ab7422b81bb1f519fd67a9581405f/mr/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/hadoop/mr/EsInputFormat.java)
in Solr or is there any work that is planned in this regard?
-Jamie
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > The patch adds facet.method=uif and then delegates all of the work to the
> > JSON Faceting API to do the work. I had originally added a
> facet.method=dv
> > and made the original facet.method=fc work u
nce?
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > For those interested I created a separate jira issue for this but forgot
> to
> > attach earlier.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8466
> > On Jan 2, 2016 8:45 PM, "
ocValues and our faceting is slow.
>
> Please...
>
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > Is there any interest in this? While i think it's important and inline
> > with faceting available in the new json facet api, I've seen no
> discussi
onent will be a copy
which is prefer to not need to maintain separately.
Jamie
On Dec 22, 2015 12:37 PM, "Jamie Johnson" wrote:
> I had previously piggybacked on another post, but I think it may have been
> lost there. I had a need to do UnInvertedField based faceting in the
> Face
Yes the field is multi valued
On Dec 28, 2015 3:48 PM, "Jack Krupansky" wrote:
> Is the field multivalued?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 11:16 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > What is the difference of adding a field with the same value twice
Can you do the opposite? Index into an unanalyzed field and copy into the
analyzed?
If I remember correctly facets are based off of indexed values so if you
tokenize the field then the facets will be as you are seeing now.
On Dec 28, 2015 9:45 AM, "Kevin Lopez" wrote:
> *What I am trying to acc
increase the size of your index without providing any real benefits at
> query time.
> For increasing the scores, boosting is definitely the way to go.
>
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2015, 09:46 Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > What is the difference of adding a field with the same value twice
What is the difference of adding a field with the same value twice or
adding it once and boosting the field on add? Is there a situation where
one approach is preferred?
Jamie
omefield], and your MyFieldDocTransformer makes the
> decision as to whether or not to include somefield in the output.
>
> This would of course, require some Java coding.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 09:17 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > Sorry hit send too early
> >
s the
> > decision as to whether or not to include somefield in the output.
> >
> > This would of course, require some Java coding.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 24, 2015, at 09:17 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> >> Sorry hit send too early
> >
Sorry hit send too early
Is there a mechanism in solr/lucene that allows customization of the fields
returned that would have access to the field content and payload?
On Dec 24, 2015 4:15 PM, "Jamie Johnson" wrote:
> I have what I believe is a unique requirement discussed here in
I have what I believe is a unique requirement discussed here in the past to
limit data sent to users based on some marking in the field.
I had previously piggybacked on another post, but I think it may have been
lost there. I had a need to do UnInvertedField based faceting in the
FacetsComponent and as such started looking at what would be required to
implement something similar to what the JSON Facets based API does in this
regard
Thanks, the issue I'm having is that there is no equivalent to method uif
for the standard facet component. We'll see how SOLR-8096 shakes out.
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Upayavira wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015, at 01:32 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> >
For those interested I've attached an initial patch to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096 to start supporting uif in
FacetComponent via JSON facet api.
On Dec 18, 2015 9:22 PM, "Jamie Johnson" wrote:
> I recently saw that the new JSON Facet API supports con
Bill,
Check out the patch attached to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096. I had considered making
the method uif after I had done most of the work, it would be trivial to
change and would probably be more aligned with not adding unexpected
changes to people that are currently using f
I recently saw that the new JSON Facet API supports controlling the facet
method that is used and was wondering if there was any support for doing
the same thing in the original facet component?
Also is there a plan to deprecate one of these components over the other or
is there an expectation tha
Also can we get the capability to choose the method of faceting in the
older faceting component? I'm not looking for complete feature parity just
the ability to specify the method. As always thanks.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Can we still specify t
Can we still specify the cache implementation for the field cache? When
this change occurred to faceting (uninverting reader vs field ) it
prevented us from moving to 5.x but if we can get the 4.x functionality
using that api we could look to port to the latest.
Jamie
On Dec 17, 2015 9:18 AM, "Yo
>
> Pure guesswork here, not enough information. But, as described, Solr
> will not be able to fulfill your needs easily. Something will need to
> change.
>
> Regards,
>Alex.
>
>
> Newsletter and resources for Solr beginners and intermediates:
> http://www.solr
I have a use case where we only need to append some fields to a document.
To retrieve the full representation is very expensive but I can easily get
the deltas. Is it possible to just add fields to an existing Solr
document? I experimented with using overwrite=false, but that resulted in
two docu
Has anyone looked at this issue? I'd be willing to take a stab at it if
someone could provide some high level design guidance. This would be a
critical piece preventing us from moving to version 5.
Jamie
Thanks that's what I suspected given what I'm seeing but wanted to make
sure. Again thanks
On Nov 5, 2015 1:08 PM, "Mikhail Khludnev"
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > Is this expected to work?
>
>
> I think i
y try to do this?
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > I am looking at using child documents and noticed that if I specify a
> child
> > and parent with the same key solr indexes this fine and I can retrieve
> both
> > documents separate
I came across this post (
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Payload-doesn-t-apply-to-WordDelimiterFilterFactory-generated-tokens-td3136748.html)
and tried to find a JIRA for this task. Was one ever created? If not I'd
be happy to create it if this is still something that makes sense or if
instea
Yes if they are in separate requests I imagine it would work though I
haven't tested. I was wondering if there was a way to execute these
actions in a single request and maintain order.
On Oct 24, 2015 3:25 PM, "Shawn Heisey" wrote:
> On 10/24/2015 5:21 AM, Jamie Johnson wro
Looking at the code and jira I see that ordering actions in solrj update
request is currently not supported but I'd like to know if there is any
other way to get this capability. I took a quick look at the XML loader
and it appears to process actions as it sees them so if the order was
changed to
I am looking at using child documents and noticed that if I specify a child
and parent with the same key solr indexes this fine and I can retrieve both
documents separately. Is this expected to work?
-Jamie
Ah please ignore, it looks like this was totally unrelated and my issue was
configuration related
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I am getting an error that essentially says solr does not have auth for
> /unrelatednode/... I would be ok with the error being dis
I am getting an error that essentially says solr does not have auth for
/unrelatednode/... I would be ok with the error being displayed, but I
think this may be what is causing my solr instances to be shown as down.
Currently I'm issuing the following command
http://localhost:8983/solr/admin/colle
Tracking not teaching... Auto complete is fun...
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015, 6:34 AM Jamie Johnson wrote:
> No worries, thanks again I'll begin teaching this
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 5:16 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry Jamie, I totally missed this email. Ther
No worries, thanks again I'll begin teaching this
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015, 5:16 PM Tomás Fernández Löbbe
wrote:
> Sorry Jamie, I totally missed this email. There was no Jira that I could
> find. I created SOLR-7996
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 5:26 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
&g
thanks.
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> This sounds like a good idea, I'm assuming I'd need to make my own
> UnInvertingReader (or subclass) to do this right? Is there a way to do
> this on the 5.x codebase or would I still need the solrindexer factor
FieldCache/FieldCacheImpl
> but you could perhaps wrap what is cached there to either screen out
> stuff or construct a new entry based on the user.
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > I think a custom UnInvertingReader would work as
Right, I am removing them myself. Another feature which would be great
would be the ability to specify a custom collector like the positive score
only collector in this case to avoid having to do an extra pass over all of
the scores, but I don't believe there is a way to do that now right?
On Thu
yticsQuery might be done after everything was
completed, but it looks like it was executed before faceting which is great.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Thanks Yonik. I currently am using this to negate the score of a document
> given the value of a particular
nik Seeley wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > I don't see it explicitly mentioned, but does the boost only get applied
> to
> > the final documents/score that matched the provided query or is it called
> > for each field that matched? I&#
ed now).
>
> One could either subclass or re-implement UnInvertingReader though.
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > Also in this vein I think that Lucene should support factories for the
> > cache creation as described @
&
, plus it will make it easier to unit
>> test and extend for advanced use cases.
>>
>> Tomás
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry to poke this again but I'm not following the last comment of how I
>> > could g
cases.
>
> Tomás
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > Sorry to poke this again but I'm not following the last comment of how I
> > could go about extending the solr index searcher and have the extension
> > used. Is there an example
Sorry to poke this again but I'm not following the last comment of how I
could go about extending the solr index searcher and have the extension
used. Is there an example of this? Again thanks
Jamie
On Aug 25, 2015 7:18 AM, "Jamie Johnson" wrote:
> I had seen this as wel
at 5:35 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I think I found it. {!boost..} gave me what i was looking for and then a
> custom collector filtered out anything that I didn't want to show.
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
>> Are there any example implementatio
I think I found it. {!boost..} gave me what i was looking for and then a
custom collector filtered out anything that I didn't want to show.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Are there any example implementation showing how StrDocValues works? I am
> not sure
Are there any example implementation showing how StrDocValues works? I am
not sure if this is the right place or not, but I was thinking about having
some document level doc value that I'd like to read in a function query to
impact if the document is returned or not. Am I barking up the right tre
that code...
>
> I'm not sure how generally useful this would be, and if it comes
> at a cost to normal searching there's sure to be lively discussion.
>
> Best
> Erick
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > Looks like I have somethin
PM, "Jamie Johnson" wrote:
> Right, I had assumed (obviously here is my problem) that I'd be able to
> specify payloads for the field regardless of the field type. Looking at
> TrieField that is certainly non-trivial. After a bit of digging it appears
> that if I want
my hands a LOT here.
>
> I suspect that trying to have a custom type that incorporates
> payloads for, say, trie fields will be "interesting" to say the least.
> Numeric types are packed to save storage etc. so it'll be
> an adventure..
>
> Best,
> Erick
a field is much the same
> > > thing as boosting on any matches in the field at query time
> > > or boosting on the field at index time (this latter assuming
> > > that different docs would have different boosts).
> > >
> > > So can you back up a bit and
ing about
> the same thing ;)
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > I would like to specify a particular payload for all tokens emitted from
> a
> > tokenizer, but don't see a clear way to do this. Ideally I could
I would like to specify a particular payload for all tokens emitted from a
tokenizer, but don't see a clear way to do this. Ideally I could specify
that something like the DelimitedPayloadTokenFilter be run on the entire
field and then standard analysis be done on the rest of the field, so in
the
I am honestly not familiar enough to say. Best to try it
On Aug 25, 2015 7:59 AM, "CrazyDiamond" wrote:
> It sounds like you need to control when the uuid is and is not created,
> just feels like you'd get better mileage doing this outside of solr
> Can I simply insert a condition(blank or not )
It sounds like you need to control when the uuid is and is not created,
just feels like you'd get better mileage doing this outside of solr
On Aug 25, 2015 7:49 AM, "CrazyDiamond" wrote:
> Why not generate the uuid client side on the initial save and reuse this on
> updates? i can't do this beca
Why not generate the uuid client side on the initial save and reuse this on
updates?
On Aug 25, 2015 4:22 AM, "CrazyDiamond" wrote:
> i have uuid field. it is not set as unique, but nevertheless i want it not
> to
> be changed every time when i call /update. it might be because i added
> request
I had seen this as well, if I over wrote this by extending
SolrIndexSearcher how do I have my extension used? I didn't see a way that
could be plugged in.
On Aug 25, 2015 7:15 AM, "Mikhail Khludnev"
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> &
oint for this. It's
> too specific requirement.
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > as mentioned in a previous email I have a need to provide security
> controls
> > at the term level. I know that Lucene/Solr doesn't support this so I had
as mentioned in a previous email I have a need to provide security controls
at the term level. I know that Lucene/Solr doesn't support this so I had
baked something onto a 4.x baseline that was sufficient for my use cases.
I am now looking to move that implementation to 5.x and am running into an
cache. I don't see anyway to override this cache or
augment the key in anyway, am I missing an extension point here? Is there
another approach I should be taking in this case?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> This was my original thought. We already have th
t.
>
> The Contains predicate only makes sense for non-point indexed data.
>
> ~ David
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:02 PM Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > Can someone clarify the difference between isWithin and Contains in
> regards
> > to Solr's spatial supp
This was my original thought. We already have the thread local so should
be straight fwd to just wrap the Field name and use that as the key. Again
thanks, I really appreciate the feedback
On Aug 19, 2015 8:12 AM, "Yonik Seeley" wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Jamie J
; On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > Thanks, I'll try to delve into this. We are currently using the parent
> > query parser, within we could use {!secure} I think. Ultimately I would
> > want the solr qparser to actually do the work of parsing and
x27;s not
clear to me what to do in the qparser once I have the user auths though.
Again thanks, this is really good stuff.
On Aug 18, 2015 8:54 PM, "Yonik Seeley" wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > I really like this idea in concept. My query wou
.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > when you say a security filter, are you asking if I can express my
> security
> > constraint as a query? If that is the case then the answer is no. At
> th
the document which I think we wouldn't have to do anything to the caches
but our customer has pushed back on this in the past.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > Yes, my use case is security. Basically
hat are more at the lucene
> level and can't be disabled.
>
> Can I ask what you are trying to prevent from being cached and why?
> Different caches are for different things, so it would seem to be an
> odd usecase to disable them all. Security?
>
> -Yonik
>
>
>
I see that if Solr is in realtime mode that caching is disable within the
SolrIndexSearcher that is created in SolrCore, but is there anyway to
disable caching without being in realtime mode? Currently I'm implementing
a NoOp cache that implements SolrCache but returns null for everything and
does
t; screen in the Admin UI? If you check "Verbose
> output" mark, you will see all the offsets and can easily confirm the
> detailed behavior for yourself.
>
> Regards,
> Alex.
>
> Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs and even a newsletter:
> http://www.solr-s
The JavaDoc says that the PhoneticFilterFactory will "inject" tokens with
an offset of 0 into the stream. I'm assuming this means an offset of 0
from the token that it is analyzing, is that right? I am trying to
collapse some of my schema, I currently have a text field that I use for
general purp
Can someone clarify the difference between isWithin and Contains in regards
to Solr's spatial support? From
https://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrAdaptersForLuceneSpatial4 I see that if
you are using point data you should use Intersects, but it is not clear
when to use isWithin and contains. My guess
6, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I am attempting to put together a DocsAndPositionsEnum that can hide terms
> given the payload on the term. The idea is that if a term has a particular
> access control and the user does not I don't want it to be visible. I have
> ba
I am attempting to put together a DocsAndPositionsEnum that can hide terms
given the payload on the term. The idea is that if a term has a particular
access control and the user does not I don't want it to be visible. I have
based this off of
https://github.com/roshanp/lucure-core/blob/master/sr
I have a need for doing using payloads in a SpanOrQuery to influence the
score. I noticed that there is no PayloadSpanOrQuery so I'd like to
implement one. I couldn't find a ticket in JIRA for this so I created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6706, if this feature exists I
will gladl
Sorry answered my own question. For those that are interested this is
related to how BlockJoinParentQParser handles sub queries and looks like
it's working as it should.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I have a use case where I want to use the block join quer
I have a use case where I want to use the block join query parser for the
top level query and for the nested portion a custom query parser. I was
originally doing this, which worked
{!parent which='type:parent'}_query_:{!myqp df='child_pay' v='"value foo"'}
but switched to this which also worked
Khludnev"
wrote:
> Does PayloadNearQuery suite for it?
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
>
> > Is there a way to consider payloads for scoring in phrase queries like
> > exists in PayloadTermQuery?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sincer
looks like there is nothing that exists in this regard and there is no jira
ticket that I could find. Is this something that there is any other
interest in? Is this something that a ticket should be created for?
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> Is there a way
Is there a way to consider payloads for scoring in phrase queries like
exists in PayloadTermQuery?
ing places Solr wasn't designed to deal
> with so whatever you do will be "exciting". And you're right,
> creating huge clauses will be a performance issue, the payloads
> thing may help you tame that.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:30 AM,
> Now, this breaks down if the document model isn't that simple,
> say the same field in doc1 can be seen by userX, but userX
> can't see the _same_ field in doc2. That's an ugly problem...
>
> And let's further say there are a number of fields that _ever
looking to rewrite a fielded query like +field:value
possibly to something like +(field.secure:value field.secure2:value)
Again thanks for suggestions
On Jul 22, 2015 5:20 PM, "Jamie Johnson" wrote:
> I answered my own question, looks like the field infos are always read
> within the Ind
at 4:45 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> I had thought about this in the past, but thought it might be too
> expensive. I guess in a search component I could look up all of the fields
> that are in the index and only run queries against fields they should be
> able to see once I know what is in t
nt to facet
> over, you'd have
> to control that.
> 3> if you have a "bag of words" where you use copyField to add a bunch
> of field's
> data to an uber-field then the user can infer some things from that
> info, so you probably
> don't want to be c
I am looking for a way to prevent fields that users shouldn't be able to
know exist from contributing to the score. The goal is to provide a way to
essentially hide certain fields from requests based on an access level
provided on the query. I have managed to make terms that users shouldn't
be ab
I have the following documents indexed
0
1
physicalcharacteristics
Black
Green
physicalcharacteristics
Red
Brown
person
1
physicalcharacteristics
Pink
Purple
physicalcharacteristics
Brown
Blue
person
2
I am able to get back all people that have child documents with brown hair
and
understand.
On Dec 18, 2014 5:18 PM, "Jamie Johnson" wrote:
> I have not tried this as of yet, but is there any limitation to the
> nesting of documents? Specifically can sub documents have their own sub
> documents? Are there any practical limits on this or performance imp
I have not tried this as of yet, but is there any limitation to the nesting
of documents? Specifically can sub documents have their own sub
documents? Are there any practical limits on this or performance impacts
from a search/indexing perspective to consider?
I have found that DateMathParser is extremely useful in providing nice
labels back to clients, but having to bring in all of solr-core to get it
is causing us issues in our current implementation. Are there any thoughts
about moving this to another jar (say solr-utils?) that would allow clients
to
Thanks Shawn, I appreciate the information.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> On 4/9/2014 7:47 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
> > This is being triggered by adding the commitWithin param to
> > ContentStreamUpdateRequest (request.setCommitWithin(1);). My
&g
the current transaction log. These may be good things but
> they have nothing to do with making docs visible :).
>
> See:
>
> http://searchhub.org/2013/08/23/understanding-transaction-logs-softcommit-and-commit-in-sorlcloud/
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014
2.commit end_commit_flush
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> What does the call look like? Are you setting opening a new searcher
> or not? That should be in the log line where the commit is recorded...
>
> FWIW,
> Erick
>
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 5:37
I'm running solr 4.6.0 and am noticing that commitWithin doesn't seem to
work when I am using the /update/extract request handler. It looks like a
commit is happening from the logs, but the documents don't become available
for search until I do a commit manually. Could this be some type of
config
I would like to begin exploring partial document updates, but I have not
seen any documentation that would indicate that SolrJ supports this, are
there any documents describing how to do this or if it's even supported?
1 - 100 of 517 matches
Mail list logo
