I believe we are experiencing the same thing.
We recently upgraded to our Drupal 8 sites to SOLR 8.3.1. We are now getting
reports of certain patterns of search terms resulting in an error that reads,
“The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.”
Below is a list of
Hongtai Xue:
First, many thanks for reporting this in such detail, it really helps and it’s
obvious you’ve dug into the problem rather than just thrown it over the wall.
Please do raise a JIRA, no matter what the behaviors should be the same.
One caution: Searching on a docValues=“true”
The *_str variant produced by the _default configset is DocValues only, as thus
intended primarily for faceting and sorting.
Try changing this line in your schema
>
>> but if you write query like, q=A:1 OR A:2 OR B:1 OR B:2,
>> it will work perfect.
>>
>> the only difference of two queries
Hi,
Our team found a strange behavior of solr query parser.
In some specific cases, some conditional clauses on unindexed field will be
ignored.
for query like, q=A:1 OR B:1 OR A:2 OR B:2
if field B is not indexed(but docValues="true"), "B:1" will be lost.
but if you write query like, q=A:1 OR
Anybody else remotely interested in giving a fuck about the systemic
Windows Solr test failures that started on Feb-24 ? ... becuase I'm kind
of over the whole "being the jenkins babysitter" job -- it was getting
too sysiphian.
Oh hey look, all of the failing tests have an ERROR in the logs
I'd like us to reflect on how we categorize issues in CHANGES.txt. We have
these categories:
(Lucene) 'API Changes', 'New Features', 'Improvements', 'Optimizations',
'Bug Fixes', 'Other'
(Solr) 'New Features', 'Improvements', 'Optimizations', 'Bug Fixes', 'Other
Changes'
(I lifted these from
Hello!
I am trying to perform an upgrade from solr 6.2.1 to 8.4.1.
I was able to fix 99% of the problems related to deprecated API. The only one
that I need to figure out is related to BaseDistributedSearchTestCase.
So I perform a test case where I group the documents with group.ngroups = true
Yes, it's an inconsistency for sure, thanks!
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 17:53 Hongtai Xue wrote:
> Erik and Jan
>
> Thanks for your reply.
> we will raise a JIRA today (Japanese time).
>
> And, yes, we understand unindexed docvalues field should not be used to
> search.
> one our new solr user just
Erik and Jan
Thanks for your reply.
we will raise a JIRA today (Japanese time).
And, yes, we understand unindexed docvalues field should not be used to search.
one our new solr user just happened to find it, and after doing some digging,
we think we should report it to community.
Thanks
Hi Phil.Staley
Thanks for your reply.
but I'm afraid that's a different problem.
Our problem can be confirmed since at least SOLR 7.3.0. (the oldest version we
have)
And we guess it might already exists since SOLR-9786.
Hongtai:
First, many thanks for reporting this in such detail, it really helps and
it’s obvious you’ve dug into the problem rather than just thrown it over
the wall.
Please go ahead and raise a JIRA
Best,
Erick
On Mar 2, 2020, at 03:45, Hongtai Xue wrote:
Hi,
Our team found a strange
11 matches
Mail list logo
