Re: hybrid document routing

Sounds like complex ACLs based on group memberships that use graph queries ? that would require local ACL's... On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 5:56 PM Ishan Chattopadhyaya < ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote: > This seems like an XY problem. Would it be possible to describe the > original problem that

Re: SOLR-13412 (Make the Lucene Luke module available from a Solr distribution)

See comments on the JIRA. Short form: let’s not do this. > On Aug 10, 2020, at 7:47 PM, Tomoko Uchida > wrote: > > Thanks David, for the information. I agree with Luke - a GUI app which needs > Window system - is not inherently suited to a Server application. > > > if Docker could run GUI

Re: SOLR-13412 (Make the Lucene Luke module available from a Solr distribution)

Thanks David, for the information. I agree with Luke - a GUI app which needs Window system - is not inherently suited to a Server application. > if Docker could run GUI apps This reminds me an elasticsearch user once notified us he/she worked on Dockernized Luke. I refused to merge it at that

Performance in Solr 9 / Java 11

In my IDE, I have a few profiling tools that I bounce between that I started using in my work at Lucidworks but I continue to use in my current work today. I have suspicions that there may be some performance improvements in Java 11 that we can exploit further. I'm curious as to if there has been

Re: When zero offsets are not bad - a.k.a. multi-token synonyms yet again

oh,thanks! that saves everybody some time. I have commented in there, pleading to be allowed to do something - if that proposal sounds even little bit reasonable, please consider amplifying the signal On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM David Smiley wrote: > > There already is one:

Re: hybrid document routing

This seems like an XY problem. Would it be possible to describe the original problem that led you to this solution (in the prototype)? Also, do you think folks at solr-users@ list would have more ideas related to this usecase and cross posting there would help? On Tue, 11 Aug, 2020, 1:43 am David

Re: SOLR-13412 (Make the Lucene Luke module available from a Solr distribution)

There's a decent tutorial here: https://sematext.com/blog/solr-plugins-system/ But it's unclear if a standalone tool like Luke is really sensible as a Solr "plug-in" because it does not "plug-in" to Solr; it does not live within Solr in any way. It'd be interesting if Docker could run GUI apps or

Re: When zero offsets are not bad - a.k.a. multi-token synonyms yet again

There already is one: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-8776 ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 1:30 PM Roman Chyla wrote: > I'll have to somehow find a solution for this situation, giving up > offsets

Re: hybrid document routing

Are you sure you need the docs in the same shard when maybe you could assume a core exists on each node and then do a query-time join? ~ David Smiley Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:34 PM Joel Bernstein wrote: > I have a

[VOTE] Release Lucene/Solr 8.6.1 RC2

Please vote for release candidate 2 for Lucene/Solr 8.6.1 The artifacts can be downloaded from: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/lucene/lucene-solr-8.6.1-RC2-rev6e11a1c3f0599f1c918bc69c4f51928d23160e99 You can run the smoke tester directly with this command: python3 -u

hybrid document routing

I have a situation where I'd like to have the standard compositeId router in place for a collection. But, I'd like certain documents (ACL documents) to be duplicated on each shard in the collection. To achieve the level of access control performance and scalability I'm looking for I need the ACL

Re: Badapple report

OK, thanks. I’m not really annotating things at this point, although occasionally removing some that haven’t failed in a long time. > On Aug 10, 2020, at 1:44 PM, Tomás Fernández Löbbe > wrote: > > Hi Erick, > I've introduced and later fixed a bug in TestConfig. It hasn't failed since, > so

Re: Badapple report

Hi Erick, I've introduced and later fixed a bug in TestConfig. It hasn't failed since, so please don't annotate it. On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 7:47 AM Erick Erickson wrote: > We’re backsliding some. I encourage people to look at: > http://fucit.org/solr-jenkins-reports/failure-report.html, we have

Re: When zero offsets are not bad - a.k.a. multi-token synonyms yet again

I'll have to somehow find a solution for this situation, giving up offsets seems like too big a price to pay, I see that overriding DefaultIndexingChain is not exactly easy -- the only thing I can think of is to just trick the classloader into giving it a different version of the chain (praying

Badapple report

We’re backsliding some. I encourage people to look at: http://fucit.org/solr-jenkins-reports/failure-report.html, we have a number of ill-behaved tests, particularly TestRequestRateLimiter, TestBulkSchemaConcurrent, TestConfig, SchemaApiFailureTest and TestIndexingSequenceNumbers… Raw fail

SOLR-14714 (Solr.cmd in windows loads the incorrect jetty module when using java>=9)

Could someone with a Windows machine try the patch at SOLR-14714? I looked it over and LGTM with one nit: I would move the following up to before they’re actually used: set JAVA_MAJOR_VERSION=0 set JAVA_VERSION_INFO= set JAVA_BUILD=0 I don’t think it matters functionally, just a style thing.