Hi,
Since the stream graph query for my use case , didn't work as i took the
data from solr source code test and also copied the schema and
solrconfig.xml from solr 7.6 source code. Had to substitute few variables.
Posted below data
curl -X POST http://localhost:8983/solr/knr/update -H
Hi,
We are using Solr 7.2.1 with 2 nodes (245GB RAM each) and 3 node ZK cluster in
production. We are using Java 8 with default GC settings (with NewRatio=3) with
15GB max heap, changed to 16 GB after the performance issue mentioned below.
We have about 90 collections in this (~8 shards
Any help on this is much appreciated.
--
Sent from: https://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html
Thanks for the reply.
Currently we are migrating from solr4 to solr8 under solr 4 we wrote our own
highlighter because the provided one was too slow for our documents.
We deal with many large documents, but we have full term vectors already. So
as I understand it from my reading of the code
> Note: adding score=none as a local param. Turns another algorithm
> dragging by from side join.
Indeed, the behavior with score=none local param is a query time
correlated with the joined collection subset size. For subset of 100k
documenrs, the query time is 1 seconds, 4 sec for 1M I get
Hi Shawn,
Just checking to see if you saw my reply and had any feedback. Thank you again
for your help. It is much appreciated.
Thank you,
Russ
From: Russell Bahr
Date: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 11:50 AM
To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org"
Subject: Re: solr 8.1.1 many time slower returning
Adi,
If you are looking for something specific you might want to try something
different. Before you would search 'the end of a document', you might
think about segmenting the document and searching specific segments. At
the end of a lot of things like email will be signatures. Those are
Well, after some digging and trying to recall things:
1) XMLParser allows to specify a query in a different way from normal
query parameters:
https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/8_1/other-parsers.html#xml-query-parser
2) SpanFirst allowed to anchor the search to the start of the text and
provide
Going to back to the initial question, the wording is a little ambiguous
and it occurs to me that it's possible there's a misunderstanding of what
autoGeneratePhraseQueries does. It really only auto-generates phrase
*subqueries*. To use the example from the initial request, a query like
(black
Hi Pratik,
The visualizations are all done using Apache Zeppelin and the Zeppelin-Solr
interpreter. The getting started part of the user guide provides links for
Zeppelin-Solr. The install process in pretty quick. This is all open
source, freely available software. It's possible that Zepplin-Solr
I'm trying to restore a couple of collections, and 1 keeps feeling. This
happens to be the only one who's leader isn't on the host that the backup
was taken from.
The backup was done on server1, for all collections.
For this collection that is failing, the Leader was on server2. All other
Hi Joel,
Looks like this is going to be very helpful, thank you! I am wondering
whether the visualizations are generated through third party library or is
it something which would be part of solr distribution?
Hi,
The Visual Guide to Streaming Expressions and Math Expressions is now
complete. It's been published to Github at the following location:
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/visual-guide/solr/solr-ref-guide/src/math-expressions.adoc#streaming-expressions-and-math-expressions
The guide
On 10/16/2019 7:14 AM, Shubham Goswami wrote:
I have implemented the sow=false property with eDismax Query parser but
still it does not has any effect
on the query as it is still parsing as separate terms instead of phrased
one.
We have seen reports that when sow=false, which is the default
Hi Rohan/Audrey
I have implemented the sow=false property with eDismax Query parser but
still it does not has any effect
on the query as it is still parsing as separate terms instead of phrased
one.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:25 PM Rohan Kasat wrote:
> Also check ,
> pf , pf2 , pf3
> ps , ps2,
Note: adding score=none as a local param. Turns another algorithm dragging
by from side join.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:37 AM Nicolas Paris
wrote:
> Sadly, the join performances are poor.
> The joined collection is 12M documents, and the performances are 6k ms
> versus 60ms when I compare to
The NOT operator isn’t a Boolean NOT, so it requires some care, Chris Hostetter
wrote a good blog about that. Try
q=*:* -(:*c*
The query q=-something really isn’t valid syntax, but some query parsers help
you out by silently putting the *:* in front of it. that’s not guaranteed
across all
Three things off the top of my head, in order of how long it’d take to
implement:
***
If it’s _always_ some distance from the start or end, index special beginning
and end tags. perhaps a nonsense string like BEGINslkdjfhsldkfhsdkfh and
ENDslakshalskdfhj. Now your searches become phrase
Hi,
These are really text positions.
For example I have a document: "hello thanks for calling the support how can I
help you"
And in the application I would like to search for documents that match "thanks"
NEAR "support" only in first 30 words of the document (greeting part for
example), and
Hi,
I am facing issue while working with solr streamimg expression. I am using
/export for emiting tuples out of streaming query.Howver when I tried to use
not operator in solr query it is not working.The same is working with /select.
Please find the below query
Hi Rohit,
Solr bundle comes with a Jetty server by default and does not require a
tomcat instance to run. Even though earlier version of Solr was in the form
of war file, Solr 5.0 and higher versions no longer supports user defined
containers. Details of the same are available in the link below
Hello,
We are trying to implement APACHE SOLR 8.2.0 in our Organization, In our
organization, we use Tomcat for Deployment of web applications and Server OS is
Suse Linux (SLES v12-sp3).
So we have some Query related to software requirement of APACHE SOLR 8.2.0,
1. Which tomcat minimum
My colleagues Eric Pugh and Dan Worley covered OCR and Solr in a
presentation at our recent London Lucene/Solr Meetup:
https://www.meetup.com/Apache-Lucene-Solr-London-User-Group/events/264579498/
(direct link to slides if you can't find it in the comments
So are these really text locations or rather actually sections of the
document. If later, can you parse out sections during indexing?
Regards,
Alex
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 3:57 AM Kaminski, Adi,
wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for the responses.
>
> It's a soft boundary which is resulted by dynamic
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-13850
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:25 AM Mikhail Khludnev wrote:
> Hello, Oleksandr.
> It deserves JIRA, please raise one.
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:17 PM Oleksandr Drapushko
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Community,
> >
> > I've discovered data loss bug and
Hello,
I am having a problem with a primitive self-written TokenFilter, namely the
GermanUmlautFilter in the example below. It's being used for both queries
and indexing.
It works perfectly most of the time, it replace ä with ae, ö with oe and so
forth, before ICUFoldingFilter replaces the
Hi Eric,
Unified highlighter does not have an option to provide alternate field when
highlighting. That option is available with Orginal and fast vector
highlighter. As indicated in the Solr documentation, Unified is the
recommended method for highlighting to meet most of the use cases. Please do
Sadly, the join performances are poor.
The joined collection is 12M documents, and the performances are 6k ms
versus 60ms when I compare to the denormalized field.
Apparently, the performances does not change when the filter on the
joined collection is changed. It is still 6k ms when the subset
Hello, Oleksandr.
It deserves JIRA, please raise one.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:17 PM Oleksandr Drapushko
wrote:
> Hello Community,
>
> I've discovered data loss bug and couldn't find any mention of it. Please
> confirm this bug haven't been reported yet.
>
>
> Description:
>
> If you try to
Hi,
Thanks for the responses.
It's a soft boundary which is resulted by dynamic syntax from our application.
So may vary from different user searches, one user can search some "word1" in
starting 30 words, and another can search "word2" in
starting 10 words. The use case is to match some
> You can certainly replicate the joined collection to every shard. It
> must fit in one shard and a replica of that shard must be co-located
> with every replica of the “to” collection.
Yes, I found this in the documentation, with a clear example just after
this mail. I will test it today. I
31 matches
Mail list logo
