Solr Total Documents Failed

Currently solr incremental indexing results shown below. status : idle Total Requests made to DataSource : 2 Total Rows Fetched : 2 Total Documents Processed : 0 Total Documents Skipped : 0 Delta Dump started : 2017-09-26 05:57:15 Identifying Delta : 2017-09-26 05:57:15 Deltas Obtained :

Solr Total Documents Failed

Currently solr incremental indexing results shown below.status : idleTotal Requests made to DataSource : 2Total Rows Fetched : 2Total Documents Processed : 0Total Documents Skipped : 0Delta Dump started : 2017-09-26 05:57:15Identifying Delta : 2017-09-26 05:57:15Deltas Obtained : 2017-09-26

Re: AEM SOLR integaration

Thanks Daniel and Tommaso! I will go through the links shared. On integrating SOLR with AEM, Do we need to have individual SOLRCloud for each AEM instance ? Or we can have a common SOLR cloud for all AEM instance in each environment. We are not using shared data store. So any pointers on this

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

Thanks Steve, I was trying to look at the page without login and seeing only a handful of bugs/fixes; probably because most of those bugs/tasks do not have public security-level. Thanks Nawab On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: > Hi Nawab, > > > On Sep 26,

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

Hi Nawab, > On Sep 26, 2017, at 8:04 PM, Nawab Zada Asad Iqbal wrote: > > Thanks , another question(s): > > why is this released marked 'unreleased' ? > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12335718 The 7.0 release manager hasn’t gotten around to marking it

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

Thanks , another question(s): why is this released marked 'unreleased' ? https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12335718 how is it different from : https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SOLR/versions/12341601 (i guess this is duplicate and will not be used) I was expecting to

Filter Factory question

I am trying to create a filter that normalizes an input token, but also splits it inot multiple pieces. Sort of like what the WordDelimiterFilter does. It's meant to take a molecular formula like C2H6O and normalize it to C2H6O1 That part works. However I was also going to have it put out the

RE: DocValues, Long and SolrJ

The delete for additions is done with: ConcurrentUpdateSolrClient solr = new ConcurrentUpdateSolrClient(solrProperties.getServer(),10,2); try { solr.deleteByQuery("*:*"); solr.commit(); } catch (SolrServerException | IOException ex) { }

RE: DocValues, Long and SolrJ

I get it after I have deleted the index with a delete query and start trying to populate it again with new documents. The error occurs when the indexer tries to add a new document. And yes, I did change the schema before I started the operation. -Original Message- From: Emir Arnautović

Re: Modifing create_core's instanceDir attribute

I don't think you can. You can, however, use the core admin API to do that, see: https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/coreadmin-api.html#coreadmin-api Best, Erick On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Miller, William K - Norman, OK - Contractor wrote: > I know

Re: SOLR 6.1 | Continuous hits coming for unwanted URL pattern

I have no idea why Hybris would initiate these queries, I'd suggest you ask them. As to why they'd lead to memory consumption, they shouldn't as Yonik said. The sort parameter may be uninverting the _docid_ field into the JVM memory space, but that should happen immediately as of the first query.

Modifing create_core's instanceDir attribute

I know that when the create_core command is used that it sets the core to the name of the parameter supplied with the "-c" option and the instanceDir attribute in the http is also set to the name of the core. What I want is to tell the create_core to use a different instanceDir parameter. How

Re: SOLR 6.1 | Continuous hits coming for unwanted URL pattern

Hi Erick, The queries are getting initiated from HYBRIS which is our front end application server from where indexing happens as well as queries are fired to fetch data from slaves. The question is why would my back end servers on hybris will initiate these queries because back end servers are

Re: SOLR 6.1 | Continuous hits coming for unwanted URL pattern

Hi Yonik, Thanks for your reply. All our hits are coming from SAP HYBRIS SERVER (hosted on tomcat). However, what I am still not sure if what process will initiate these requests. We are not using any hardware load balancer between hybris and SOLR. So may be LBHttpSolrClient is the one making

Re: SOLR 6.1 | Continuous hits coming for unwanted URL pattern

Looks like it's some sort of ping (liveness) query, probably from a load balancer? Actually, it looks like it's a SolrJ client... here's the code that sets up that exact query:

Re: Two separate instances sharing the same zookeeper cluster

Actually, I do have an idea what tool to use, bin/solr. But use at your own risk. You can use 'bin/solr zk cp -r blah blah blah" to copy the entire tree down to somewhere local then copy it back up to a different place. Prior to Solr 6.6, however, this wouldn't work when copying from root so

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

Not quite. Ongoing development always occurs on the *.x branch. When the release manager (RM) decides to cut a release, they set a label on the *.x branch. So in this case, when Anshum volunteered to create 7.0, he picked a time and set the branch_7_0 label pointing at the then-7x branch.

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Nawab Zada Asad Iqbal wrote: > Thanks Yonik and Erick. > > That is helpful. > I am slightly confused about the branch name conventions. I expected 7x to > be named as branch_7_0 branch_7x is the main branch for all 7.x releases. When it's time

Re: Solr performance issue on querying --> Solr 6.5.1

Well, 15 second responses are not what I'd expect either. But two things (just looked again) 1> note that the time to assemble the debug information is a large majority of your total time (14 of 15.3 seconds). 2> you're specifying 600 rows which is quite a lot as each one requires that a 16K

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

Thanks Yonik and Erick. That is helpful. I am slightly confused about the branch name conventions. I expected 7x to be named as branch_7_0 , am i misunderstanding something? Similar to branch_6_6 (for 6.6.x onwards) . Regards Nawab On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Yonik Seeley

Re: Two separate instances sharing the same zookeeper cluster

On 9/15/2017 10:23 AM, James Keeney wrote: > However, I'm not sure how to switch the production cluster to explicitly > reference the directory it currently uses. Do I need to setup the directory > first? To set up a *new* cloud under a chroot, you do need to create the chroot within the ZK

Re: Solr performance issue on querying --> Solr 6.5.1

Hi Erick, Thank you for the quick response. Query time was relatively faster once it is read from memory. But personally I always felt response time could be far better. As suggested, We will try and set up in a non HDFS environment and update on the results. Thanks, Arun -- Sent from:

RE: Moving to Point, trouble with IntPoint.newRangeQuery()

Thanks! I'll try it and get back later! -Original message- > From:Chris Hostetter > Sent: Tuesday 26th September 2017 18:52 > To: Solr-user > Subject: Re: Moving to Point, trouble with IntPoint.newRangeQuery() > > > : I have a

Re: Moving to Point, trouble with IntPoint.newRangeQuery()

: I have a QParser impl. that transforms text input to one or more : integers, it makes a BooleanQuery one a field with all integers in : OR-more. It used to work by transforming the integer using : LegacyNumericUtils.intToPrefixCoded, getting a BytesRef. : : I have now moved it to use

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

One can also use a nightly snapshot build to try out the latest stuff: 7.x: https://builds.apache.org/job/Solr-Artifacts-7.x/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/solr/package/ 8.0: https://builds.apache.org/job/Solr-Artifacts-master/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/solr/package/ -Yonik On Tue, Sep 26,

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

There's nothing preventing you from getting/compiling the latest Solr 7x (what will be 7.1) for your own use. There's information here: https://wiki.apache.org/solr/HowToContribute Basically, you get the code from Git (instructions provided at the link above) and execute the "ant package" command

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

Hi Nawab, Committership is a prerequisite for the Lucene/Solr release manager role. Some info here about the release process: -- Steve www.lucidworks.com > On Sep 26, 2017, at 11:28 AM, Nawab Zada Asad Iqbal wrote: > >

Re: When will be solr 7.1 released?

Where can I learn more about this process? I am not a committer but I am wondering if I know enough to do it. Thanks Nawab On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:23 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > In a word "no". Basically whenever a committer feels like there are > enough changes to

Re: SOLR 6.1 | Continuous hits coming for unwanted URL pattern

A couple of things: 1> just getting these queries, even with the sort parameter shouldn't lead to OOMs. Well, to be more correct it should either OOM immediately or not at all. 2> The =false is usually associated with SolrCloud as the aggregator node sends out a sub-request to one replica of each

Re: 7.0 upgrade: Trie* -> Point* migration

Trie* fields will be supported through the 7x code line, so you have quite a bit of time to plan your upgrade. Best, Erick On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 9/26/2017 2:23 AM, Bram Van Dam wrote: >> We're preparing for an upgrade to 7.0, but I'm a

Re: Solr performance issue on querying --> Solr 6.5.1

Does the query time _stay_ low? Once the data is read from HDFS it should pretty much stay in memory. So my question is whether, once Solr warms up you see this kind of query response time. Have you tried this on a non HDFS system? That would be useful to help figure out where to look. And given

Solr performance issue on querying --> Solr 6.5.1

Hi All, I have been using Solr for some time now but mostly in standalone mode. Now my current project is using Solr 6.5.1 hosted on hadoop. My solrconfig.xml has the following configuration. In the prod environment the performance on querying seems to really slow. Can anyone help me with few

Re: 7.0 upgrade: Trie* -> Point* migration

On 9/26/2017 2:23 AM, Bram Van Dam wrote: > We're preparing for an upgrade to 7.0, but I'm a bit worried about the > deprecation of Trie* fields. Is there any way to upgrade an existing > index to use Point* fields without having to reindex all documents? Does > the IndexUpgrader take care of

Re: Solr 5.5.2 - Custom Function Query update

Hi Susheel and Emir, Thanks for your quick help. We are not using SolrCloud mode and the jar wasn't duplicated. My supposition about the jar not being updated initially came from a performance issue that was corrected. The effects were seen on our development environment and not on our testing

RE: Moving to Point, trouble with IntPoint.newRangeQuery()

Ah, i hoped that that was the case, but it appears i really did change all occurences of Trie to Point: This is the schema the test is using. Also, this is in a unit test which i forgot to mention, so i reindex everything for each test. Thanks anyway, Markus -Original

Re: Moving to Point, trouble with IntPoint.newRangeQuery()

The Points queries use a completely different data structure to the previous range queries, so you can’t just use them interchangeably, you have to reindex your data. I’m guessing your ‘d1’ field here is a TrieIntField or similar? Alan Woodward www.flax.co.uk > On 26 Sep 2017, at 12:22,

Re: Moving to Point, trouble with IntPoint.newRangeQuery()

Arrgh, forget my question. I just see that newExactQuery() simply triggers newRangeQuery() like you already do. -Michael Am 26.09.2017 um 13:29 schrieb Michael Kuhlmann: > Hi Markus, > > I don't know why there aren't any results. But just out of curiosity, > why don't you use the better choice

Re: Moving to Point, trouble with IntPoint.newRangeQuery()

Hi Markus, I don't know why there aren't any results. But just out of curiosity, why don't you use the better choice IntPoint.newExectQuery(String,int)? What happens if you use that? -Michael Am 26.09.2017 um 13:22 schrieb Markus Jelsma: > Hello, > > I have a QParser impl. that transforms

Moving to Point, trouble with IntPoint.newRangeQuery()

Hello, I have a QParser impl. that transforms text input to one or more integers, it makes a BooleanQuery one a field with all integers in OR-more. It used to work by transforming the integer using LegacyNumericUtils.intToPrefixCoded, getting a BytesRef. I have now moved it to use

SOLR 6.1 | Continuous hits coming for unwanted URL pattern

Hi, We are using SOLR 6.1 with hybris. On our production environment the set is as follows: Master for replication using AFTER_COMMIT and 2 slaves which servers the query response. The replication was initially set to 60 seconds as we wanted latest data on slaves ASAP. On production environment

Re: Question on SOLR join query

> I am reading similar issues and it says "initial join implementation is O(nterms)".. What does this mean? It enumerates all par_id terms every time. As an alternative for some of field types you can add {!join ... score=none ...}.. to trigger Lucene's join algorithm with O(fromDocs) ie if

7.0 upgrade: Trie* -> Point* migration

Hey folks, We're preparing for an upgrade to 7.0, but I'm a bit worried about the deprecation of Trie* fields. Is there any way to upgrade an existing index to use Point* fields without having to reindex all documents? Does the IndexUpgrader take care of this? Thanks, - Bram

Re: DocValues, Long and SolrJ

Hi Phil, Are you saying that you get this error when you create fresh core/collection? This sort of errors are usually related to schema being changed after some documents being indexed. Thanks, Emir > On 25 Sep 2017, at 23:42, Phil Scadden wrote: > > I ran into a

Re: Solr 5.5.2 - Custom Function Query update

Hi Florian, I am guessing that you are running Solr in SolrCloud Mode. Please see https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/adding-custom-plugins-in-solrcloud-mode.html and let us know if this helps.