ZooKeeper for Solr 7.6
Hi I am trying Solr 7.6 in SolrCloud mode. But I found that ZooKeeper 3.4.11 has a critical issue about handling data/log directories. (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-2960) So, I want to know if using ZooKeeper 3.4.12 with Solr 7.6 is safe. Does anyone know this? Thanks, Yasufumi.
Questions about the IndexUpgrader tool.
Hi, I have questions about the IndexUpgrader tool. - I want to upgrade from Solr 4 to Solr 7. Can I run upgrade the index from 4 to 5 then 5 to 6 and finally 6 to 7 using appropriate version of the IndexUpgrader but without loading the Index in the Solr at all during the successive upgrades. - The note in the tool says "This tool only keeps last commit in an index". Does this mean I have optimize the index before running the tool? - There is another note about partially upgraded index. How can the index be partially upgraded. One scenario I can think of is 'If I upgraded let's say from Solr 5 to Solr 6 and then added some documents. The new documents will be in Lucerne 6 format already, while old documents will still be Solr 5 format’ Is my understanding correct?
Nested Child document doesn't return in query
I ingested some nested documents into a Solr 7.4 core . When I search with
the following it's not returning a child document that I expected:
```
{!child of=cont_type:overview}id:2
```
I can see that the document I'm looking for exists with the query:
```
q=id:2-1
```
I'm wondering why the document with id "2-1" now doesn't return with the
Block Join Child Query Parser? It previously did. I'm wondering is there a
way someone could have un-nested a child document?
--
Stephon Harris
*Enterprise Knowledge, LLC*
*Web: *http://www.enterprise-knowledge.com/
*E-mail:* shar...@enterprise-knowledge.com/
*Cell:* 832-628-8352
Re: Combine & Sort - SOLR and SQL Data
You can take a look a Solr Streaming expressions to see if it meets your needs. The "jdbc" Stream and "search" streams can be combined using the "merge" stream. http://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_6/stream-source-reference.html http://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/7_6/stream-decorator-reference.html#merge Joel Bernstein http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 8:57 AM Tech Support wrote: > Dear Team, > > Once per day, my data importing tool will collect data from SQL server and > add it into SOLRCloud. > > Current day data will be imported at the end of the day. > > I want to apply search and sorting for all my data. For this case, how can > I > combine & sort, both SQL and SOLR data? > > Is it possible to achieve both SOLR and SQL Server > > Note: > > My SOLRCloud setup is running on Windows OS with following Softwares > > * SOLR - 2 Instance - 7.5 Version > > * External Zookeeper - 3 Instance - 3.4.13 Version > > > > Thanks, > > Karthick Ramu > > > >
Combine & Sort - SOLR and SQL Data
Dear Team, Once per day, my data importing tool will collect data from SQL server and add it into SOLRCloud. Current day data will be imported at the end of the day. I want to apply search and sorting for all my data. For this case, how can I combine & sort, both SQL and SOLR data? Is it possible to achieve both SOLR and SQL Server Note: My SOLRCloud setup is running on Windows OS with following Softwares * SOLR - 2 Instance - 7.5 Version * External Zookeeper - 3 Instance - 3.4.13 Version Thanks, Karthick Ramu
Iterative graph/nodes query
Hi, looking at the graph traversal capabilities of solr. Is there a function/feature that traverses until certain pre-requisites are met? For instance, in an hierarchical use case, "traverse all children until a child has a certain name or type"? Using the current nodes streaming expression I need to know beforehand the number of levels I need to traverse. Is there a feature supporting this use-case or is it planned to be implemented? Thanks in advance. / Magnus
Re: per field mm
Hello, Koji.
Why don't request separate {!edixmax qf=filed mm=3}bar per field?
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 9:23 AM Koji Sekiguchi
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a use case that one of our customers wants to set different mm
> parameter per field,
> as in some fields of qf, unexpectedly many terms are produced because they
> are N-gram fields
> while in other fields, few terms are produced because they are normal text
> fields.
>
> If it is reasonable, I want to add per field mm feature. What do you think
> about this?
> And if there is existing jira, let me know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Koji
>
--
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev
Re: Solr recovery issue in 7.5
I'm still pretty clueless trying to find the root cause of this behavior. One thing is pretty consistent that whenever a node restarts up and sends a recovery command, the recipient shard/replica goes down due to sudden surge in old gen heap space. Within minutes, it hits the ceiling and stall the server. And this keeps one going in circles. After moving to 7.5, we decided to switch to G1 from CMS. We are using the recommended settings from Shawn's blog. GC_TUNE="-XX:+UseG1GC \ -XX:+PerfDisableSharedMem \ -XX:+ParallelRefProcEnabled \ -XX:G1HeapRegionSize=8m \ -XX:MaxGCPauseMillis=250 \ -XX:InitiatingHeapOccupancyPercent=75 \ -XX:+UseLargePages \ -XX:+AggressiveOpts \ -XX:OnOutOfMemoryError=/mnt/ebs2/solrhome/bin/oom_solr.sh" Can this be tuned better to avoid this? Also, I'm curios to know if any 7.5 user has experienced similar scenario. Can there be some major change related to recovery that I might be missing after porting from 6.6? -- Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
Re: Search only for single value of Solr multivalue field (part 2)
On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 05:44:30PM -0800, Erick Erickson wrote: > No, the idea is that you have N single valued fields, one for each of > the MV entries you have. The copyField dest would be MV, and only used > in those cases you wanted to match across values. Not saying that's a > great solution, or if it would even necessarily work but thought it > worth mentioning. Ok, then my initial document with MV fields: > "content_txt":["001 first","002 second"] would become: > "content1_t":"001 first" > "content2_t":"002 second" > "_copiedfield_":["001 first","002 second"] And then the initial user query: > content_txt:(first AND second) would become: > content1_t:(first AND second) OR content2_t:(first AND second) Depending on the length of the initial array, each document will have a different number of contentx_t. This means some management like a layer between the user and the parser, to extend the query with the maximum possible contentx_t fields in the collection. (with max=100 for performance reason?) QUESTION: is the MV limitation a *solr parser* limitation, or a *lucene* limitation. If it is the latter, writing my own parser would be an option isn't ? -- nicolas
