Brian,
except for your sql-syntax error in the specie_relations-query SELECT
specie_id FROMspecie_relations .. (missing whitespace after FROM)
your config looks okay.
following questions:
* is there a field named specie in your schema? (otherwise dih will
silently ignore it)
* did you check your
If filterCache hitratio is low then just disable it in solrconfig by deleting
the section or setting its values to 0.
Based on what I've read here and what I could find on the web, it seems
that each fq clause essentially gets its own results cache. Is that
correct?
We have a corporate
Also, if you're on 3.1, the function needs to be without spaces since sort will
split on space to find the sort order.
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
On 28. feb. 2011, at 22.34, John Sherwood wrote:
Fair call. Thanks.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:21
Have you tried removing the dataDir tag from solrconfig.xml? Then it should
fall back to default ./data relative to core instancedir.
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
On 1. mars 2011, at 00.00, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Unless I'm doing something
Hi Anurag
The request handler has been added the solrconfig file.
I'll try your attached requesthandler and see if that helps.
Interestingly enough the whole setup when I was using nutch 1.2/solr 1.4.1.
It is only since moving to nutch trunk/solr branch_3x that the problem has
occurred. I
i have nutch-1.0 and Apache-solr-1.3.0 (integrated these two).
On 3/1/11, Paul Rogers [via Lucene]
ml-node+2601915-1461428819-146...@n3.nabble.com wrote:
Hi Anurag
The request handler has been added the solrconfig file.
I'll try your attached requesthandler and see if that helps.
Hi,
Yesterday's error log contains something peculiar:
ERROR [solr.search.SolrCache] - [pool-29-thread-1] - : Error during auto-
warming of key:+*:*
(1.0/(7.71E-8*float(ms(const(1298682616680),date(sort_date)))+1.0))^20.0:java.lang.NullPointerException
at
This works:
/select/?q=*:*sort=price desc
This throws a 400 error:
/select/?q=*:*sort=sum(1, 1) desc
Missing sort order.
I'm using 1.4.2. I've tried all sorts of different numbers/functions/fields
and nothing seems to change that error. Any ideas?
**
How can I get the payload from each highlighted term?
Hi Scott,
Querying against a multi-valued field just works - no special incantation
required.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Scott Yeadon [mailto:scott.yea...@anu.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:50 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Query on multivalue field
Hello,
I can't understand why this query is not matching anything. Could someone
help me please?
*Query*
http://localhost:8894/solr/select?q=linguajob.plqf=company_namewt=xmlqt=dismaxdebugQuery=onexplainOther=id%3A1
response
-
lst name=responseHeader
int name=status0/int
int name=QTime12/int
-
I did try that, yes. I tried that first in fact! It seems to fall back
to a ./data directory relative to the _main_ solr directory (the one
above all the cores), not the core instancedir. Which is not what I
expected either.
I wonder if this should be considered a bug? I wonder if anyone
Is it possible to add function queries/boosts to the results that are by
MLT? If not out of the box how would one go about achieving this
functionality?
Thanks
You may have noticed the ResponseWriter code is pretty hairy! Things
are package protected so that the API can change between minor release
without concern for back compatibility.
In 4.0 (/trunk) I hope to rework the whole ResponseWriter framework so
that it is more clean and hopefully stable
Yes, it looks like I had left off the field (misspelled it actually). I
reran the full import and the fields did properly show up. However, it is
still not working as expected. Using the example below, a result returned
would only list one specie instead of a list of species. I have the
following
Thank you for your reply but the searching is still not working out. For
example, when I go to:
http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=*%3A*http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=*%3A*version=2.2start=0rows=10indent=on
I get the following as a response:
result name=response numFound=249943 start=0
Brian,
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Brian Lamb
brian.l...@journalexperts.com wrote:
field column=specie multiValued=true name=specie type=string
indexed=true stored=true required=false /
Not sure, but iirc field in this context has no column-Attribute ..
that should normally not break your
Hi,
i'm not sure if it is a typo, anyway the second query you mentioned should
be:
http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=type:*
HTH,
Edo
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Brian Lamb brian.l...@journalexperts.comwrote:
Thank you for your reply but the searching is still not working out. For
Next question, do you have your type field set to index=true in your
schema?
Upayavira
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 11:06 -0500, Brian Lamb
brian.l...@journalexperts.com wrote:
Thank you for your reply but the searching is still not working out. For
example, when I go to:
In your first attempt, the crux of your problem was probably that you were
never closing the searcher/reader.
: Or how can I perform a query on the current state of the index from within an
: UpdateProcessor?
If you implement UpdateRequestProcessorFactory, the getInstance method is
given the
: Unless I'm doing something wrong, in my experience in multi-core Solr in
: 1.4.1, you NEED to explicitly provide an absolute path to the 'data' dir.
have you looked at the example/multicore directory that was included in
the 1.4.1 release?
it has a solr.xml that loads two cores w/o
Ryan,
honestly, hairyness was rather mild.
I found it fairly readable.
paul
Le 1 mars 2011 à 16:46, Ryan McKinley a écrit :
You may have noticed the ResponseWriter code is pretty hairy! Things
are package protected so that the API can change between minor release
without concern for back
I was curious why would the size be dramatically different even though
the index versions are the same?
One is 1.2 Gb, and on the slave it is 512 MB
I would think they should both be the same size no?
Thanks
Thanks for the help Stefan. It seems removing column=specie fixed it.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Stefan Matheis
matheis.ste...@googlemail.com wrote:
Brian,
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Brian Lamb
brian.l...@journalexperts.com wrote:
field column=specie multiValued=true
Hi all,
The problem was that my fields were defined as type=string instead of
type=text. Once I corrected that, it seems to be fixed. The only part that
still is not working though is the search across all fields.
For example:
http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=type%3AMammal
Now correctly
Traditionally, people forget to reindex ;)
Hi all,
The problem was that my fields were defined as type=string instead of
type=text. Once I corrected that, it seems to be fixed. The only part
that still is not working though is the search across all fields.
For example:
Are there pending commits on the master?
I was curious why would the size be dramatically different even though
the index versions are the same?
One is 1.2 Gb, and on the slave it is 512 MB
I would think they should both be the same size no?
Thanks
Oh if only it were that easy :-). I have reindexed since making that change
which is how I was able to get the regular search working. I have not
however been able to get the search across all fields to work.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Markus Jelsma markus.jel...@openindex.iowrote:
No pending commits, what it looks like is there are almost two copies
of the index on the master, not sure how that happened.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Markus Jelsma
markus.jel...@openindex.io wrote:
Are there pending commits on the master?
I was curious why would the size be
I wonder if i shall use solr int or string for such field with following
requirement
multi-value
facet needed
sort not needed
The field value is a an id. Therefore, i can store as either numeric field
or just a string. Shall i choose string for efficiency?
Thanks.
--
View this message in
I wonder if i shall use solr int or
string for such field with following
requirement
multi-value
facet needed
sort not needed
The field value is a an id. Therefore, i can store as
either numeric field
or just a string. Shall i choose string
for efficiency?
Trie based integer
Thanks, but just to confirm the way multiValued fields work:
In a multiValued field, call it field1, if I have two values indexed to
this field, say value 1 = some text...termA...more text and value 2 =
some text...termB...more text and do a search such as field1:(termA termB)
(where
ok doing some more research I noticed, on the slave it has multiple
folders where it keeps them for example
index
index.20110204010900
index.20110204013355
index.20110218125400
and then there is an index.properties that shows which index it is using.
I am just curious why does it keep multiple
: The field value is a an id. Therefore, i can store as
: either numeric field
: or just a string. Shall i choose string
: for efficiency?
:
: Trie based integer (tint) is preferred for faster faceting.
range faceting/filtering yes -- not for field faceting which is what i
think he's
Hmm, okay, have to try to find time to install the example/multicore and
see.
It's definitely never worked for me, weird.
Thanks.
On 3/1/2011 2:38 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: Unless I'm doing something wrong, in my experience in multi-core Solr in
: 1.4.1, you NEED to explicitly provide an
The slave should not keep multiple copies _permanently_, but might
temporarily after it's fetched the new files from master, but before
it's committed them and fully wamred the new index searchers in the
slave. Could that be what's going on, is your slave just still working
on committing and
Sorry i didn't make my question clear.
I will only facet based on field value, not ranged query (it is just some
ids for a multi-value field). And i won't do sort on the field either.
In that case, is string more efficient for the requirement?
--
View this message in context:
In a multiValued field, call it field1, if I have two
values indexed to
this field, say value 1 = some text...termA...more text
and value 2 =
some text...termB...more text and do a search such as
field1:(termA termB)
(where solrQueryParser defaultOperator=AND/) I'm
getting a hit
I will only facet based on field value, not ranged
query (it is just some
ids for a multi-value field). And i
won't do sort on the field either.
In that case, is string more efficient for the
requirement?
Hoss was saying to use, fieldType name=int class=solr.TrieIntField
Dear all,
First I am sorry if this question has already been asked ( I am sure it
was...) but I can't find the right option with solrj.
I want to query only documents that contains ALL query terms.
Let me take an example, I have 4 documents that are simple sequences ( they
have only one field :
--- On Wed, 3/2/11, openvictor Open openvic...@gmail.com wrote:
From: openvictor Open openvic...@gmail.com
Subject: Searching all terms - SolrJ
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date: Wednesday, March 2, 2011, 12:20 AM
Dear all,
First I am sorry if this question has already been asked (
I
The only trick with this is ensuring the searches return the right
results and don't go across value boundaries. If I set the gap to the
largest text size we expect (approx 5000 chars) what impact does such a
large value have (i.e. does Solr physically separate these fragments in
the index or
Hi Bill,
I was using a different approach to sort by the distance with the dist()
function, since geodist() is not documented on the wiki (
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery)
Tried something like:
sort=dist(2, 45.15,-93.85, lat, lng) asc
I made some tests with geodist() function as you
I tried this in my 1.4.0 installation (commenting out what had been
working, hoping the default would be as you said works in the example):
solr persistent=true sharedLib=lib
cores adminPath=/admin/cores
core name=bpro instanceDir=bpro
!-- property name=solr.data.dir value=solr/bpro/data/ --
Each token has a position set on it. So if you index the value alpha
beta gamma, it winds up stored in Solr as (sort of, for the way we want
to look at it)
document1:
alpha:position 1
beta:position 2
gamma: postition 3
If you set the position increment gap large, then
This definitely matches my own experience, and I've heard it from
others. I haven't heard of anyone who HAS gotten it to work like that.
But apparently there's a distributed multi-core example which claims to
work like it doesn't for us.
One of us has to try the Solr distro multi-core
Hi,
I would like to announce Crawl Anywhere. Crawl-Anywhere is a Java Web
Crawler. It includes :
* a crawler
* a document processing pipeline
* a solr indexer
The crawler has a web administration in order to manage web sites to be
crawled. Each web site crawl is configured with a
Yes but I want to leave the choice to the user.
He can either search all the terms or just some.
Is there any more flexible solution ? Even if I have to code it by hand ?
2011/3/1 Ahmet Arslan iori...@yahoo.com
--- On Wed, 3/2/11, openvictor Open openvic...@gmail.com wrote:
From:
Tested it out and seems to work well as long as I set the gap to a value
much longer than the text - 1 appear to work fine for our current
data. Thanks heaps for all the help guys!
Scott.
On 2/03/11 11:13 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Each token has a position set on it. So if you index
Can I know why? I thought solr is tuned for string if no sorting of facet by
range query is needed.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/numberic-or-string-type-for-non-sortable-field-tp2606353p2607932.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at
Indeed, the slave should not have useless copies but it does, at least in
1.4.0, i haven't seen it in 3.x, but that was just a small test that did not
exactly meet my other production installs.
In 1.4.0 Solr does not remove old copies at startup and it does not cleanly
abort running
Hmm, please provide analyzer of text and output of debugQuery=true. Anyway, if
field type is fieldType text and the catchall field text is fieldType text as
well
and you reindexed, it should work as expected.
Oh if only it were that easy :-). I have reindexed since making that change
which
: !-- Used to specify an alternate directory to hold all index data
:other than the default ./data under the Solr home.
:If replication is in use, this should match the replication
: configuration
: . --
: dataDir${solr.data.dir:./solr/data}/dataDir
that directive says use the
: Can I know why? I thought solr is tuned for string if no sorting of facet by
: range query is needed.
tuned for string doesn't really mean anything to me, i'm not sure what
that's in refrence to. nothing thta i know of is particularly optimized
for strings. Almost anything can be
See http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpatialSearch and yest use sort=geodist()+asc
This Wiki page has everything you should need\.
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Alexandre Rocco alel...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Bill,
I was using a different approach to sort by the distance with the dist()
function,
I am not 100% sure. But I why did you not use the standard confix for text ?
fieldType name=text class=solr.TextField
positionIncrementGap=100 autoGeneratePhraseQueries=true
analyzer type=index
tokenizer class=solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory/
!-- in this example, we will
Hi,
I can't seem to be able to index to a solr date field from a query result
using DataImportHandler. Anyone else know how to resoleve the problem?
entity name=title
query=select ID, title_full as TITLE_NAME, YEAR,
COUNTRY_OF_ORIGIN, modified as RELEASE_DATE
: Digging into the source code of DateMathParser.java, i found the following
: comment:
:99 // NOTE: consciously choosing not to support WEEK at this time,
: 100 // because of complexity in rounding down to the nearest week 101
: // arround a month/year boundry. 102
: query=select ID, title_full as TITLE_NAME, YEAR,
: COUNTRY_OF_ORIGIN, modified as RELEASE_DATE from title limit 10
Are you certian that the first 10 results returned (you have limit 10)
all have a value in the modified field?
if modified is nullable you could very
: Yes but I want to leave the choice to the user.
:
: He can either search all the terms or just some.
:
: Is there any more flexible solution ? Even if I have to code it by hand ?
the declaration in the schema dictates the default.
you can override the default at query time using the q.op
Yes, I am pretty sure every row has a modified field. I did my testing
before posting question.
I tried with adding DateFormatTransformer, still not help.
entity name=title
query=select ID, title_full as TITLE_NAME, YEAR,
COUNTRY_OF_ORIGIN, modified as
field column=date dateTimeFormat=-MM-dd'T'hh:mm:ss /
Did you convert the date to standard GMT format as above in DIH?
Also add transformer=DateFormatTransformer,...
http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/schema/DateField.html
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 7:54 PM, cyang2010
Dominique,
The obvious number one question is of course why you re-invented this wheel
when there are several existing crawlers to choose from. Your website says
the reason is that the UIs on existing crawlers (e.g. Nutch, Heritrix, ...)
weren't sufficiently user-friendly or had the site-specific
Bill,
I did try to use the way you suggested above. Unfortunately it does not
work either.
It is pretty much the same as my last reply, except the
dateTimeFormat=-MM-dd'T'hh:mm:ss
Thanks,
cyang
--
View this message in context:
Great !
Thank you very much Chris, it will come handy !
Best regards,
Victor
2011/3/1 Chris Hostetter hossman_luc...@fucit.org
: Yes but I want to leave the choice to the user.
:
: He can either search all the terms or just some.
:
: Is there any more flexible solution ? Even if I have
I wonder how to run dataimporthandler in debug mode. Currently i can't get
data correctly into index through dataimporthandler, especially a timestamp
column to solr date field. I want to debug the process.
According to this wiki page:
Commands
The handler exposes all its API as http requests
Hi,
I am experimenting with the *morelikethis* to see if it also works
with *distributed* search.But i did not get the solution yet.Can anyone
help me regarding this. please provide me detailed description. as I
didnt find it by updating
67 matches
Mail list logo
