Does more shards in core improve performance?

Hi, Would like to check, does creating more shards for the core improve the overall performance? I'm using Solr 5.3.0. I tried the indexing for a core with 1 shard and another core with 2 shards, but both are taking the same amount of time to do the indexing. Currently, both my shards are in

Re: 5 second timeout in bin/solr stop command

16.9.2015, 16.16, Shawn Heisey kirjoitti: I agree here. I don't like the forceful termination unless it becomes truly necessary. I changed the timeout to 20 seconds in the script installed in /etc/init.d ... a bit of a brute force approach. When I find some time, I will think about how to

Re: Does more shards in core improve performance?

On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 12:04 +0530, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote: > Yes, of course, the only reason to have more shards is so that they > can reside on different machines (or use different disks, assuming you > have enough CPU/memory etc) so that you can scale your indexing > throughput. For

Solr 'rq' parameter with QParserPlugin

Hi all, I have an existing custom QParserPlugin which uses my custom implementation of the CustomScoreQuery in its parse() method. I am trying to see if I can use this with the rq parameter to re-rank the top N documents after the first default ranking. All I found till now is you can use either

Re: solr.SynonymFilterFactory

Hi Vincenzo, By intuition, regardless of what value you set for attributes such as expand or ignoreCase, I think synonym records that LHS==RHS are meaningless. That is, you can remove these lines. Koji On 2015/09/17 16:51, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote: Hello, this may be a silly question. I

Re: solr.SynonymFilterFactory

I can not see any reason in keeping those lines, they are actually identity mapping ! Cheers 2015-09-17 8:51 GMT+01:00 Vincenzo D'Amore : > Hello, > > this may be a silly question. > I have found a synonyms file with a lot of cases where LHS is equal to RHS. > >

Re: Does more shards in core improve performance?

Yes, of course, the only reason to have more shards is so that they can reside on different machines (or use different disks, assuming you have enough CPU/memory etc) so that you can scale your indexing throughput. Move one of them to a different machine and measure the performance. On Thu, Sep

Re: SolrCloud clarification/Question

and replicationFactor is the number of copies of your data, not the number of servers marked 'replica'. So as has been said, if you have one leader, and three replicas, your replicationFactor will be 4. Upayavira On Thu, Sep 17, 2015, at 03:29 AM, Erick Erickson wrote: > Ravi: > > Sameer is

solr.SynonymFilterFactory

Hello, this may be a silly question. I have found a synonyms file with a lot of cases where LHS is equal to RHS. airmax=>airmax airplane=>airplane airwell=>airwell akai=>akai akasa=>akasa akea=>akea akg=>akg Given that the solr.SynonymFilterFactory is configured with expand="false"

Re: solr.SynonymFilterFactory

Thanks a lot guys, I wanted just to be extremely sure don't break anything. On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Koji Sekiguchi < koji.sekigu...@rondhuit.com> wrote: > Hi Vincenzo, > > By intuition, regardless of what value you set for attributes such as > expand or ignoreCase, > I think synonym

Re: Securing solr 5.2 basic auth permission rules

thank you so much for your reply 2015-09-16 18:58 GMT+00:00 Anshum Gupta : > Basic authentication (and the API support, that you're trying to use) was > only released with 5.3.0 so it wouldn't work with 5.2. > 5.2 only had the authentication and authorization frameworks,

Re: Securing solr 5.2 basic auth permission rules

thank you so much for your reply, Now, i try to protect Apache Solr 5 admin with jetty, when I change 1) sudo nano /opt/solr/server/etc/webdefault.xml Solr /* search-role BASIC Solr Realm 2) i changed too "*jetty.xml *

Re: Generating a document by group count and displaying the result

The solution we came up with is to do a faceted search and use a stylesheet to 'flatten' the result. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Generating-a-document-by-group-count-and-displaying-the-result-tp4229183p4229712.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list

Re: Does more shards in core improve performance?

On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 16:58 +0800, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo wrote: > I was trying with 2 shards and 4 shards but all on the same machine, > and they have the same performance (no improvement in performance) as > the one with 1 shard. My machine has a 32GB RAM. As you are testing indexing speed,

Re: Problem with CoreAdmin API CREATE command

I have a very old index with more than 12T (re-index data is not an option ...) that I want upgrade to 5.3, I’m using lucene-core-4.10.4.jar (I’m in 4.10.4 right now) to upgrade old segments of data. With solr running I can run the command because solr has the lock of the core. I only want

Re: Problem with CoreAdmin API CREATE command

Solr 5.3 can read Solr 4.10.4 indexes as-is. Why are you trying to upgrade the indexes in the first place? Shai On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Yago Riveiro wrote: > I have a very old index with more than 12T (re-index data is not an option > ...) that I want upgrade

Strange behaviour of ttf function query

Hi, I've found a very strange behaviour for ttf function query. I can understand that ttf should be based on full-text query. My query analyser is configured as follows: When i query a term "D blooms" via

Single Term-Multiple Keywords mapping not working in solr.

Hi, I'm trying to set up some basic synonyms in Solr. I'm facing an issue with following entries in synonyms.txt file Castle=> Castle,Cinderella Castle,Le Chateau de la Belle au Bois Dormant When a user searches for castle, he gets back documents containing Le Chateau de la Belle au Bois

Re: Does more shards in core improve performance?

How many CPUs on that machine? How many other requests using the server? On Thu, Sep 17, 2015, at 09:58 AM, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo wrote: > Thanks for the information. > > I was trying with 2 shards and 4 shards but all on the same machine, and > they have the same performance (no improvement in

Re: Does more shards in core improve performance?

Thanks for the information. I was trying with 2 shards and 4 shards but all on the same machine, and they have the same performance (no improvement in performance) as the one with 1 shard. My machine has a 32GB RAM. Probably I should try one of the shard in different machine and see how it goes?

Atomic updates on multiple documents

Hi, I have a question regarding atomic updates on multiple documents. We’re using Solr 5.1.0, and I’m wondering if it’s possible to perform an atomic update on multiple documents with one request. After having a look at http://yonik.com/solr/atomic-updates/ I tried to do the following after

Re: Understanding SOLR 5.3.0

On 9/16/2015 3:47 PM, vetrik kumaran murugesan wrote: > Can you please help me understand the following usage of below mentioned > jar files, in apache Solr 5.3.0, > > 1. Tagsoup 1.2.1 > 2. Junit4-ant v 2.1.13 > 3. com.googlecode.juniversalchardet v1.0.3 > > > 2. Is it right to ask , can we

Re: Does more shards in core improve performance?

Thank you everyone for your reply. > How many CPUs on that machine? How many other requests using the server? A) There's 8 CPU on the machine, and there is no other requests that's using the server. Only the indexing script is running. > A simple metric is to look at CPU usage on the machine:

Re: Single Term-Multiple Keywords mapping not working in solr.

Hi Satya, during these days I'm working at this problem, and as far as I understood, this is an hard problem to solve. You can add in different ways synonyms in your index but the query parser is unable to match them. I have read many articles around, this is the best I found:

Re: Solr DataImportHandler is not indexing all data defined

Sanity check. Did you restart Solr or reloaded the core after you updated your schema definition? In the Admin UI, in the Schema Browser, you should be able to see all the fields you defined. Are those fields there? Regards, Alex. Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs and even a

Re: Atomic updates on multiple documents

On 9/17/2015 9:48 AM, Alfonso Muñoz-Pomer Fuentes wrote: > Hi, I have a question regarding atomic updates on multiple documents. > > We’re using Solr 5.1.0, and I’m wondering if it’s possible to perform > an atomic update on multiple documents with one request. > > After having a look at

Fwd: Solr DataImportHandler is not indexing all data defined

Hi All, Greetings for the day. I am using solr5.3 and trying to upload wikipedia page article dump to solr using "DataImportHandler" but I am getting only id and title files when i am

Re: Atomic updates on multiple documents

On 9/17/2015 10:14 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > This assumes that the uniqueKey field is "id". Unless your uniqueKey > field is "author_s" (which is highly unlikely), the JSON that you used > will not work. Chances are that the request failed, that nothing happened. On my first reading, I did not

Re: solr training

> > How about in Denver? Nah dude. I'm in Jersey. Denver's like a half a country away! On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:18 AM, William Bell wrote: > How about in Denver? > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Otis Gospodnetić < > otis.gospodne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Tim, >

Re: Problem with CoreAdmin API CREATE command

That's definitely strange as Solr 5.x should support all Solr 4.x indexes. Anyway, you can somewhat force an upgrade by running a forceMerge command after you've upgraded the libraries to 5.3.0. This will rewrite the index into one segment whose version will be 5.3. It is usually not recommended

Re: Sorting parent documents based on a field from children

Great, thank you very much for your help. On 16.09.2015 13:07, Mikhail Khludnev wrote: On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Florin Mandoc wrote: Is possible to to also add "name_s:expensive" search term in q? I know i can add it to fq but I will have no score boost. Sure

Re: Problem with CoreAdmin API CREATE command

90% of my data was indexed in 4.6.1 or lower. My goal is upgrade all data to 4.10.4 and then upgrade to 5.3 In previous test that I did with 5.3 in dev cluster, I see some strange behaviour with data indexed with 4.6.1 that in 4.10.4 didn’t reproduce. Some queries to data indexed in

Re: Solr facets implementation question

Toke Eskildsen wrote > adfel70 > adfel70@ > wrote: >> I am trying to understand why faceting on a field with lots of unique >> values >> has a great impact on query performance. > > Faceting in Solr is performed in different ways. String faceting different > from Numerics faceting, DocValued

Re: Atomic updates on multiple documents

You need to do that programmatically. Using SolrJ would be not so difficult to do that in few line of codes. Be careful to the stored fields if you don't want to lose anything. Cheers 2015-09-17 17:48 GMT+01:00 Alfonso Muñoz-Pomer Fuentes : > You’re right, we’re not working

Re: Atomic updates on multiple documents

We’re using SolrJ as well, but if I understood correctly I would need to have the uniqueKey values anyway, right? There’s no way to do what I want with one request. A simple outline is: 1. Get the uniqueKey values that match my query 2. Create a set of SolrInputDocument 3. Add the id and the

Re: Atomic updates on multiple documents

Hi Highlight Shawn answer : " Solr does not have anything like the SQL syntax that lets you update all rows that match a WHERE clause." In particular when adding a document to Solr, you are actually adding a new Document to the index ( under the hood) . The atomic update is only a user friendly

RE: Securing solr 5.2 basic auth permission rules

I'm actually trying to do something similar with 5.3 We're in the process of upgrading from 4.10 and were previously using jaas to secure dih pages and a few others and had a config similar to what you described. The Error I get is the following (Might only visible when you change the log4j

Re: Atomic updates on multiple documents

You could probably do this as a RequestUpdateProcessor (a custom one) that would take your submitted document, run a query and expand it to a bunch of documents. So, do the ID mapping internally. But you would need the ID/uniqueKeys. Definitely nothing out of the box, that I can think of.

RE: Securing solr 5.2 basic auth permission rules

I had a similar problem attempting to use JNDI when the Jetty included with Solr does not include jetty-plus... I'd like to second the suggestion to include more of jetty. In my case, there was a better solution - I just wrote a JDBC driver to wrap each driverClass I needed (Oracle, MySQL,

RE: Securing solr 5.2 basic auth permission rules

So the issue is that when it's stated that solr runs on jetty 9 what it really means is that it runs on 5% of jetty9 and the other 95% has been stripped out. (WH! It's only ~13 MB) You'll need to download the appropriate version of jetty and before starting up do the following 1. Copy

Re: Atomic updates on multiple documents

You’re right, we’re not working with a uniqueKey and I wasn’t aware of that requirement. What I’d like is to update the documents without having to retrieve all of them (or their unique ids). Basically, there are some data that all documents that match a query will share; for the sake of the

Question related to reranking and RankQuery

Hi all, I am new to Solr. I have a QParser plugin which uses an implementation of CustomScoreQuery to provide custom score for each document. Is there a way I can use the same plugin to provide score for top N documents after an initial query/sort ? I looked at the ReRankQParserPlugin but it