Re: Please add to contributers group
Done. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:58 AM, Christian Marquardt christianmarqua...@gmx.net wrote: Hi, please add me to the contributers group. Username: ChristianMarquardt https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ChristianMarquardt Best Regards Christian Beste Grüße Christian Marquardt Tannenweg 43 86391 Stadtbergen +49-179-9735764 christianmarqua...@gmx.net
Re: Solr cloud confusion?
First, if master/slave suits our use-case, there's no reason to go to SolrCloud. However, the following are some of the things you get with SolrCloud: 1 automatic document routing (irrelevant if you don't have enough docs to need more than one shard) 2 automatic fail-over/recovery if nodes go down, without having to implement re-indexing strategies for docs that might have been indexed to the master but not yet replicated to the slaves. 3 Near Real Time (NRT) searches on all the nodes. In master/slave setups you can't search a doc until it's been both indexed, then replicated which is probably many minutes. 4 Centralized configuration management via Zookeeper. 5+ there's lots more, but these are the high points. None of these are relevant in all situations. For instance, say you have an application that re-indexes your entire corpus once a day and your corpus fits on a single shard, there's no compelling reason to go to SolrCloud. In fact, there's added complexity you can just avoid. Adding capacity is just adding slaves as you indicated. Contrast that with a large collection spanning, say 10 shards that is continuously getting updated, add the requirement is that the new documents be searchable within 10 seconds of being received by the system-of-record. Add that nodes may come up and go down for some reason you get the idea ;). SolrCloud is really not about performance measured by query response time as much as management of large, multi-sharded collections. Best, Erick On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:05 PM, CKReddy Bhimavarapu chaitu...@gmail.com wrote: Dear all, I don't get when and where we should use solr cloud so that we will get best performance. How to know the peak point of solr master server? my question is when a solr can't handle the requests i.e if we reach the peak point at that time if I increase my master configuration does that slove the problem. thanks in advance, ckreddybh. chaitu...@gmail.com
AND query not working on stopwords as expected
Solr version 4.2.1 In my schema, I have text type defined as follows: --- fieldType name=text class=solr.TextField positionIncrementGap=100 analyzer type=index tokenizer class=solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory/ filter class=solr.StopFilterFactory words=stopwords.txt ignoreCase=true/ filter class=solr.WordDelimiterFilterFactory preserveOriginal=1 generateWordParts=1 generateNumberParts=1 catenateWords=1 catenateNumbers=0 catenateAll=1 splitOnCaseChange=1/ filter class=solr.SynonymFilterFactory synonyms=synonyms.txt ignoreCase=true expand=true/ filter class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory/ /analyzer analyzer type=query tokenizer class=solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory/ filter class=solr.StopFilterFactory words=stopwords.txt ignoreCase=true/ filter class=solr.WordDelimiterFilterFactory preserveOriginal=1 generateWordParts=1 generateNumberParts=1 catenateWords=0 catenateNumbers=0 catenateAll=0 splitOnCaseChange=0/ filter class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory/ /analyzer /fieldType --- Field name is of type text. I have another multi-valued int field called all_class_ids. Both fields are indexed. I have 'of' in stopwords.txt file. I am using lucene query parser. This query q=name:ofrows=0 gives no results as expected. However, this query: q=name:of AND all_class_ids:(371)rows=0 gives results and is equal to the same number of results as q=all_class_ids:(371)rows=0 This is happening only for stopwords. Why? Thanks.
Re: AND query not working on stopwords as expected
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Arun Rangarajan arunrangara...@gmail.com wrote: [...] This query q=name:ofrows=0 gives no results as expected. However, this query: q=name:of AND all_class_ids:(371)rows=0 gives results and is equal to the same number of results as q=all_class_ids:(371)rows=0 This is happening only for stopwords. Why? This is more of a full-text search thing. Removal of stopwords is more like a don't care, it's not important. Hence a query for a plane should return all documents containing plane, ignoring the question of if the document contained an a (which we can't tell since stopwords were removed during indexing). Now I understand your point about consistency too. Using the example above, something like q=name:of should arguably match all documents (or at least all documents with a name field). It is very odd to add an additional restriction and end up with more docs. -Yonik
Re: AND query not working on stopwords as expected
Query parsing is not strict boolean logic, this trips up many people even though AND, NOT and OR are used. See: https://lucidworks.com/blog/why-not-and-or-and-not/ I think what you've really got at the top level is a single MUST clause, namely all_class_ids:(371). What is _not_ happening here is a set intersection as it would if the logic were strictly boolean, and I suspect that expectation is what's misleading you. If that's not the case, post the results of adding debug=query to your URL, that'll help. Best, Erick On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Arun Rangarajan arunrangara...@gmail.com wrote: Solr version 4.2.1 In my schema, I have text type defined as follows: --- fieldType name=text class=solr.TextField positionIncrementGap=100 analyzer type=index tokenizer class=solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory/ filter class=solr.StopFilterFactory words=stopwords.txt ignoreCase=true/ filter class=solr.WordDelimiterFilterFactory preserveOriginal=1 generateWordParts=1 generateNumberParts=1 catenateWords=1 catenateNumbers=0 catenateAll=1 splitOnCaseChange=1/ filter class=solr.SynonymFilterFactory synonyms=synonyms.txt ignoreCase=true expand=true/ filter class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory/ /analyzer analyzer type=query tokenizer class=solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory/ filter class=solr.StopFilterFactory words=stopwords.txt ignoreCase=true/ filter class=solr.WordDelimiterFilterFactory preserveOriginal=1 generateWordParts=1 generateNumberParts=1 catenateWords=0 catenateNumbers=0 catenateAll=0 splitOnCaseChange=0/ filter class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory/ /analyzer /fieldType --- Field name is of type text. I have another multi-valued int field called all_class_ids. Both fields are indexed. I have 'of' in stopwords.txt file. I am using lucene query parser. This query q=name:ofrows=0 gives no results as expected. However, this query: q=name:of AND all_class_ids:(371)rows=0 gives results and is equal to the same number of results as q=all_class_ids:(371)rows=0 This is happening only for stopwords. Why? Thanks.
Custom facet.sort
Hey guys, I have a desire to order (field) facets by their order of appearance in the search results. When I first thought about it, I figured there would be some way to plug a custom Comparator into FacetComponent and link it to facet.sort=rank or something like that, but not only is there no real way to plug in a custom sort (nor is subclassing the component feasible), the complexity is further compounded by the fact faceting really only operates on the docset and so scores aren't available. If max(score) was an attribute of a facetcount object this type of sort could be done. sum(score) might also be interesting for a weighted approach. I can imagine performance concerns with doing this though. Operating on the doclist isn't enough because it's only a slice of the results. What if I reduce my scope to only needing the top 2 facets in order? It still seems to be just as complex because you have to start from the first page and request an extra long docslice from QueryComponent by hacking the start/rows params, and for all you know you need to get to the last document to get all the facets. So does anyone have any ideas of how to implement this? Maybe it isn't even through faceting. Ryan
Re: Too many merges, stalling...
I guess my first question is why you're splitting up your shards this way. You may have very good reasons, but as you outline, a huge amount of your work is on a single shard. Is it even possible to spread docs randomly instead, thus spread the load over the entire cluster rather than the hot shard? As you can probably tell, I don't have much specific to say, but LUCENE-6161 seems quite possible in your situation. Of course turning off deletes would pinpoint whether that's really the problem. Best, Erick On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 7:12 PM, ralph tice ralph.t...@gmail.com wrote: We index lots of relatively small documents, minimum of around 6k/second, but up to 20k/second. At the same time we are deleting 400-900 documents a second. We have our shards organized by time, so the bulk of our indexing happens in one 'hot' shard, but deletes can go back in time to our epoch. Recently I turned on INFO level logging in order to get better insight as to what our Solr cluster is doing. Sometimes as frequently as almost 3 times a second we get messages like: [CMS][qtp896644936-33133]: too many merges; stalling... Less frequently we get: [TMP][commitScheduler-8-thread-1]: seg=_5dy(4.10.3):C13520226/1044084:delGen=318 size=2784.291 MB [skip: too large] where size is 2500-4900MB. Am I correct in assuming that CMS is getting overwhelmed by merge activity given these log statements? I notice index data files grow up to ~1000 (~50-70GB on disk), where a non-actively indexed shard will generally use around ~400-450 data files in this SolrCloud. Also, transaction logs tend to accumulate, I suspect in relation to how far behind CMS gets. We are using default TieredMergePolicy on Solr 4.10.3. We have mergeFactor set to 5. I notice maxMergedSegmentBytes defaults to 5GB, has anyone had any success (or horror stories) trying to tune this value? Should we be looking into custom merge policies at our indexing rate? Any advice for getting better performance out of merging, or work in progress in this area? Worst case, are there any metrics to look at to monitor these sorts of situations? It seems like I need to parse log files to get a useful set of metrics data... One thought I had was deferring deletes until our 'hot' shard rotates out of its active indexing time window, I suspect that may make a large enough difference but I need to see whether we can satisfy our business rule constraints to accommodate this. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6816 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6838 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6161 seem relevant, we set ramBufferSizeMB to 256 but I don't know that this is the same setting as described in the LUCENE issue. Thanks for any thoughts, --Ralph
Re: Release date for Solr 5
There's a vote going on for the 3rd release candidate of Solr / Lucene 5.0. If everything goes smooth and the vote passes, the release should happen in about 4-5 days. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:09 PM, CKReddy Bhimavarapu chaitu...@gmail.com wrote: What is the anticipated release date for Solr 5? -- ckreddybh. chaitu...@gmail.com -- Anshum Gupta http://about.me/anshumgupta
Re: AND query not working on stopwords as expected
On 16 February 2015 at 19:12, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, it would be better to only remove stop words at query time when they are not at either end of the query. And how is that achieved in Solr? This sounds interesting but stretches my knowledge of the available filters. Regards, Alex. Sign up for my Solr resources newsletter at http://www.solr-start.com/
Having a spot of trouble setting up /browse
So, I had set up a solr core modelled on the 'multicore' example in 4.10.3, which has no /browse. Upon request, I went to set up /browse. I copied in a minimal version. When I go there, I just get some XML back: response lst name=responseHeader int name=status0/int int name=QTime4/int lst name=params/ /lst result name=response numFound=0 start=0 maxScore=0.0/ /response What else does /browse depend upon?
Re: AND query not working on stopwords as expected
Notice that I said would be rather than is! Yeah, Solr is basically broken WRT intelligent stop word handling, but nobody wants to admit it. edismax does have some limited support for the case of the query being all stop words, but that doesn't work for more complex queries with operators and the case of a leading or trailing stopword. The old Lucid query parser did have better support for queries with stop words, but that's no longer available in their current product. -- Jack Krupansky On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch arafa...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 February 2015 at 19:12, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, it would be better to only remove stop words at query time when they are not at either end of the query. And how is that achieved in Solr? This sounds interesting but stretches my knowledge of the available filters. Regards, Alex. Sign up for my Solr resources newsletter at http://www.solr-start.com/
Re: AND query not working on stopwords as expected
Well, there is CommonGrams and CommonGramsQuery filters (e.g. http://www.solr-start.com/javadoc/solr-lucene/org/apache/lucene/analysis/commongrams/CommonGramsQueryFilter.html ). But I haven't seen them in use much. If the description above (about the first/last token) would actually be useful, it is probably implementable in a similar fashion. But it would need a bunch of use-cases and/or reference material to check the benefits against. Or it could be just a matter of marking first/last token as keywords. Well, would have been if StopWordFilter actually checked for *isKeyword()*. It does not seem to. Regards, Alex. Sign up for my Solr resources newsletter at http://www.solr-start.com/ On 16 February 2015 at 20:33, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@gmail.com wrote: Notice that I said would be rather than is! Yeah, Solr is basically broken WRT intelligent stop word handling, but nobody wants to admit it. edismax does have some limited support for the case of the query being all stop words, but that doesn't work for more complex queries with operators and the case of a leading or trailing stopword. The old Lucid query parser did have better support for queries with stop words, but that's no longer available in their current product. -- Jack Krupansky On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch arafa...@gmail.com wrote: On 16 February 2015 at 19:12, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@gmail.com wrote: In fact, it would be better to only remove stop words at query time when they are not at either end of the query. And how is that achieved in Solr? This sounds interesting but stretches my knowledge of the available filters. Regards, Alex. Sign up for my Solr resources newsletter at http://www.solr-start.com/
Re: AND query not working on stopwords as expected
Specifically what is happening is that the query parser passes of to the analyzer for the name field, which removes the stopwords, including of, which results in no term to be queried. A Lucene BooleanQuery with no terms will match... nothing. But then when you add another clause, you have the combination of an empty term, and a specific term, which is equivalent to just using the specific term. Think of a sequence of terms to be ANDed as a set - if a term analyzing to no terms, there are no terms to add to the set of terms to be ANDed. Diving a little deeper, the AND operator of the two terms simply means that all terms MUST be present, but since your first term analyzed to no terms, only one term is present. Another example where this could happen is a query such as $,@. AND 371 - the $,@. gets parsed as a term, but then all the punctuation gets removed by the analyzer, leaving no term. These days, the recommended practice is to keep stopwords in the index but remove them at query time unless all of the terms in the query are stop words. In fact, it would be better to only remove stop words at query time when they are not at either end of the query. This way, queries such as to be or not to be, vitamin a, and the office can still provide meaningful and precise matches even as stop words are generally ignored. -- Jack Krupansky On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Arun Rangarajan arunrangara...@gmail.com wrote: Solr version 4.2.1 In my schema, I have text type defined as follows: --- fieldType name=text class=solr.TextField positionIncrementGap=100 analyzer type=index tokenizer class=solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory/ filter class=solr.StopFilterFactory words=stopwords.txt ignoreCase=true/ filter class=solr.WordDelimiterFilterFactory preserveOriginal=1 generateWordParts=1 generateNumberParts=1 catenateWords=1 catenateNumbers=0 catenateAll=1 splitOnCaseChange=1/ filter class=solr.SynonymFilterFactory synonyms=synonyms.txt ignoreCase=true expand=true/ filter class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory/ /analyzer analyzer type=query tokenizer class=solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory/ filter class=solr.StopFilterFactory words=stopwords.txt ignoreCase=true/ filter class=solr.WordDelimiterFilterFactory preserveOriginal=1 generateWordParts=1 generateNumberParts=1 catenateWords=0 catenateNumbers=0 catenateAll=0 splitOnCaseChange=0/ filter class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilterFactory/ filter class=solr.ASCIIFoldingFilterFactory/ /analyzer /fieldType --- Field name is of type text. I have another multi-valued int field called all_class_ids. Both fields are indexed. I have 'of' in stopwords.txt file. I am using lucene query parser. This query q=name:ofrows=0 gives no results as expected. However, this query: q=name:of AND all_class_ids:(371)rows=0 gives results and is equal to the same number of results as q=all_class_ids:(371)rows=0 This is happening only for stopwords. Why? Thanks.
Re: Having a spot of trouble setting up /browse
Velocity libraries and .vm templates as a first step! Did you get those setup? Regards, Alex. Sign up for my Solr resources newsletter at http://www.solr-start.com/ On 16 February 2015 at 19:33, Benson Margulies ben...@basistech.com wrote: So, I had set up a solr core modelled on the 'multicore' example in 4.10.3, which has no /browse. Upon request, I went to set up /browse. I copied in a minimal version. When I go there, I just get some XML back: response lst name=responseHeader int name=status0/int int name=QTime4/int lst name=params/ /lst result name=response numFound=0 start=0 maxScore=0.0/ /response What else does /browse depend upon?
RE: Collations are not working fine.
I have been working with collations the last couple days and I kept adding the collation-related parameters until it started working for me. It seems I needed str name=spellcheck.collateMaxCollectDocs50/str. But, I am using the Suggester with the WFSTLookupFactory. Also, I needed to patch the suggester to get frequency information in the spellcheck response. -Original Message- From: Rajesh Hazari [mailto:rajeshhaz...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 3:48 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Collations are not working fine. Hi Nitin, Can u try with the below config, we have these config seems to be working for us. searchComponent name=spellcheck class=solr.SpellCheckComponent str name=queryAnalyzerFieldTypetext_general/str lst name=spellchecker str name=namewordbreak/str str name=classnamesolr.WordBreakSolrSpellChecker/str str name=fieldtextSpell/str str name=combineWordstrue/str str name=breakWordsfalse/str int name=maxChanges5/int /lst lst name=spellchecker str name=namedefault/str str name=fieldtextSpell/str str name=classnamesolr.IndexBasedSpellChecker/str str name=spellcheckIndexDir./spellchecker/str str name=accuracy0.75/str float name=thresholdTokenFrequency0.01/float str name=buildOnCommittrue/str str name=spellcheck.maxResultsForSuggest5/str /lst /searchComponent str name=spellchecktrue/str str name=spellcheck.dictionarydefault/str str name=spellcheck.dictionarywordbreak/str int name=spellcheck.count5/int str name=spellcheck.alternativeTermCount15/str str name=spellcheck.collatetrue/str str name=spellcheck.onlyMorePopularfalse/str str name=spellcheck.extendedResultstrue/str str name =spellcheck.maxCollations100/str str name=spellcheck.collateParam.mm100%/str str name=spellcheck.collateParam.q.opAND/str str name=spellcheck.maxCollationTries1000/str *Rajesh.* On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Dyer, James james.d...@ingramcontent.com wrote: Nitin, Can you post the full spellcheck response when you query: q=gram_ci:gone wthh thes wintwt=jsonindent=trueshards.qt=/spell James Dyer Ingram Content Group -Original Message- From: Nitin Solanki [mailto:nitinml...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 1:05 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Collations are not working fine. Hi James Dyer, I did the same as you told me. Used WordBreakSolrSpellChecker instead of shingles. But still collations are not coming or working. For instance, I tried to get collation of gone with the wind by searching gone wthh thes wint on field=gram_ci but didn't succeed. Even, I am getting the suggestions of wtth as *with*, thes as *the*, wint as *wind*. Also I have documents which contains gone with the wind having 167 times in the documents. I don't know that I am missing something or not. Please check my below solr configuration: *URL: *localhost:8983/solr/wikingram/spell?q=gram_ci:gone wthh thes wintwt=jsonindent=trueshards.qt=/spell *solrconfig.xml:* searchComponent name=spellcheck class=solr.SpellCheckComponent str name=queryAnalyzerFieldTypetextSpellCi/str lst name=spellchecker str name=namedefault/str str name=fieldgram_ci/str str name=classnamesolr.DirectSolrSpellChecker/str str name=distanceMeasureinternal/str float name=accuracy0.5/float int name=maxEdits2/int int name=minPrefix0/int int name=maxInspections5/int int name=minQueryLength2/int float name=maxQueryFrequency0.9/float str name=comparatorClassfreq/str /lst lst name=spellchecker str name=namewordbreak/str str name=classnamesolr.WordBreakSolrSpellChecker/str str name=fieldgram/str str name=combineWordstrue/str str name=breakWordstrue/str int name=maxChanges5/int /lst /searchComponent requestHandler name=/spell class=solr.SearchHandler startup=lazy lst name=defaults str name=dfgram_ci/str str name=spellcheck.dictionarydefault/str str name=spellcheckon/str str name=spellcheck.extendedResultstrue/str str name=spellcheck.count25/str str name=spellcheck.onlyMorePopulartrue/str str name=spellcheck.maxResultsForSuggest1/str str name=spellcheck.alternativeTermCount25/str str name=spellcheck.collatetrue/str str name=spellcheck.maxCollations50/str str name=spellcheck.maxCollationTries50/str str name=spellcheck.collateExtendedResultstrue/str /lst arr name=last-components strspellcheck/str /arr /requestHandler *Schema.xml: * field name=gram_ci type=textSpellCi indexed=true stored=true multiValued=false/ /fieldTypefieldType name=textSpellCi class=solr.TextField positionIncrementGap=100 analyzer type=index tokenizer class=solr.StandardTokenizerFactory/ filter class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/ /analyzer analyzer
Too many merges, stalling...
We index lots of relatively small documents, minimum of around 6k/second, but up to 20k/second. At the same time we are deleting 400-900 documents a second. We have our shards organized by time, so the bulk of our indexing happens in one 'hot' shard, but deletes can go back in time to our epoch. Recently I turned on INFO level logging in order to get better insight as to what our Solr cluster is doing. Sometimes as frequently as almost 3 times a second we get messages like: [CMS][qtp896644936-33133]: too many merges; stalling... Less frequently we get: [TMP][commitScheduler-8-thread-1]: seg=_5dy(4.10.3):C13520226/1044084:delGen=318 size=2784.291 MB [skip: too large] where size is 2500-4900MB. Am I correct in assuming that CMS is getting overwhelmed by merge activity given these log statements? I notice index data files grow up to ~1000 (~50-70GB on disk), where a non-actively indexed shard will generally use around ~400-450 data files in this SolrCloud. Also, transaction logs tend to accumulate, I suspect in relation to how far behind CMS gets. We are using default TieredMergePolicy on Solr 4.10.3. We have mergeFactor set to 5. I notice maxMergedSegmentBytes defaults to 5GB, has anyone had any success (or horror stories) trying to tune this value? Should we be looking into custom merge policies at our indexing rate? Any advice for getting better performance out of merging, or work in progress in this area? Worst case, are there any metrics to look at to monitor these sorts of situations? It seems like I need to parse log files to get a useful set of metrics data... One thought I had was deferring deletes until our 'hot' shard rotates out of its active indexing time window, I suspect that may make a large enough difference but I need to see whether we can satisfy our business rule constraints to accommodate this. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6816 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6838 and https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-6161 seem relevant, we set ramBufferSizeMB to 256 but I don't know that this is the same setting as described in the LUCENE issue. Thanks for any thoughts, --Ralph
Re: Solr 4.8.1 : Response Code 500 when creating the new request handler
Dear Jack, 1. Look further down in the stack trace for the caused by that details the specific cause of the exception. I am still not able to find the cause of this. 2. Please explain in plain English what you are really trying to do with this non-standard approach - why aren't you just using the normal request handler? Sorry i but don't know it is non-standard approach. please guide me here. 3. You have q.alt in invariants, but also in the actual request, which is a contradiction in terms - what is your actual intent? This isn't the cause of the exception, but does raise questions of what you are trying to do. We are trying to find all the results so we are using q.alt=*:*. There are some products in our company who wants of find all the results *whose type is garments* and i forgot to mention we are trying to find only 6 rows. So using this request handler we are providing the 6 rows. 4. Why don't you have a q parameter for the actual query? In start some of the product is using the solr as the database, so we will stop these type of queries. With Regards Aman Tandon On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jack Krupansky jack.krupan...@gmail.com wrote: 1. Look further down in the stack trace for the caused by that details the specific cause of the exception. 2. Please explain in plain English what you are really trying to do with this non-standard approach - why aren't you just using the normal request handler? 3. You have q.alt in invariants, but also in the actual request, which is a contradiction in terms - what is your actual intent? This isn't the cause of the exception, but does raise questions of what you are trying to do. 4. Why don't you have a q parameter for the actual query? -- Jack Krupansky On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Aman Tandon amantandon...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I am using Solr 4.8.1 and when i am creating the new request handler i am getting the following error: *Request Handler config:* requestHandler name=my_clothes_data class=solr.SearchHandler lst name=invariants str name=defTypeedismax/str str name=indenton/str str name=q.alt*:*/str float name=tie0.01/float /lst lst name=appends str name=fqtype:garments/str /lst /requestHandler *Error:* java.lang.RuntimeException at org.apache.solr.search.ExtendedDismaxQParser$ExtendedDismaxConfiguration.init(ExtendedDismaxQParser.java:1455) at org.apache.solr.search.ExtendedDismaxQParser.createConfiguration(ExtendedDismaxQParser.java:239) at org.apache.solr.search.ExtendedDismaxQParser.init(ExtendedDismaxQParser.java:108) at org.apache.solr.search.ExtendedDismaxQParserPlugin.createParser(ExtendedDismaxQParserPlugin.java:37) at org.apache.solr.search.QParser.getParser(QParser.java:315) at org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.prepare(QueryComponent.java:144) at org.apache.solr.handler.component.SearchHandler.handleRequestBody(SearchHandler.java:197) at org.apache.solr.handler.RequestHandlerBase.handleRequest(RequestHandlerBase.java:135) at org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.execute(SolrCore.java:1952) at org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.execute(SolrDispatchFilter.java:774) at org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(SolrDispatchFilter.java:418) at org.apache.solr.servlet.SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter(SolrDispatchFilter.java:207) at org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler$CachedChain.doFilter(ServletHandler.java:1419) at org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doHandle(ServletHandler.java:455) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ScopedHandler.handle(ScopedHandler.java:137) at org.eclipse.jetty.security.SecurityHandler.handle(SecurityHandler.java:557) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.session.SessionHandler.doHandle(SessionHandler.java:231) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.doHandle(ContextHandler.java:1075) at org.eclipse.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.doScope(ServletHandler.java:384) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.session.SessionHandler.doScope(SessionHandler.java:193) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandler.doScope(ContextHandler.java:1009) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ScopedHandler.handle(ScopedHandler.java:135) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.ContextHandlerCollection.handle(ContextHandlerCollection.java:255) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerCollection.handle(HandlerCollection.java:154) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.handler.HandlerWrapper.handle(HandlerWrapper.java:116) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server.handle(Server.java:368) at org.eclipse.jetty.server.AbstractHttpConnection.handleRequest(AbstractHttpConnection.java:489) at
Weird Solr Replication Slave out of sync
Hi All, My master and slave index version and generation is the same yet the index is not in sync because when I execute the same query on both master and slave I see old docs on slave which should not be there. I also tried to fetch a specific indexversion on slave using command=fetchindexindexversion=latestMasterVersion This is very spooky because I do not get any errors on master or slave. Also I see in the logs that the slave is polling the master every 15 mins I was able to find this issue only because I was looking at the specific old document. Now I can manually delete the index folder on slave and restart my slave. But I really want to find out what could be going on. Because these type of issues are going to be hard to find especially when there are on errors. What could be happening. and how can I avoid this from happening ? Thanks, Summer
Release date for Solr 5
What is the anticipated release date for Solr 5? -- ckreddybh. chaitu...@gmail.com
Please add to contributers group
Hi, please add me to the contributers group. Username: ChristianMarquardt https://wiki.apache.org/solr/ChristianMarquardt Best Regards Christian Beste Grüße Christian Marquardt Tannenweg 43 86391 Stadtbergen +49-179-9735764 christianmarqua...@gmx.net
