getting a total of 2k.
Where could be the problem?
Thanks
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Nothing in the logs
2. No.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
1. Do you see any errors / exceptions in the logs?
2. Could you have duplicates?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Radu Toev radut...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I
them ok.
The same, if I do sepparately the 1k database. It indexes ok.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds a bit, as if SOLR stopped processing data once it queried all
from the smaller dataset. That's why you have 2000. If you just have
=m_sv_name/
field column=m_c_cluster_major/
field column=m_c_cluster_minor/
field column=m_c_country/
field column=m_c_code/
/entity
/document
/dataConfig
I've removed the connection params
The unique key is id.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote
Toev radut...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure I follow.
The idea is to have only one document. Do the multiple documents have the
same structure then(different datasources), and if so how are they actually
indexed?
Thanks.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com
no problem, hope it helps, you're welcome.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Radu Toev radut...@gmail.com wrote:
Really good point on the ids, I completely overlooked that matter.
I will give it a try.
Thanks again.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote
Hi,
This talk has some interesting details on setting up an Lucene index in RAM:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/devzone/events/conferences/revolution/2011/lucene-yelp
Would be great to hear your findings!
Dmitry
2012/2/8 James ljatreey...@163.com
Is there any practice to load index into
of this.
Thanks.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
well, you should add these fields in schema.xml, otherwise solr won't know
them.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Radu Toev radut...@gmail.com wrote:
The schema.xml is the default file that comes with Solr 3.5, didn't change
anything there.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry
=truesort=score+descfl=sitzung,gremium,betreff,datum,timestamp,score,aktenzeichen,typ,id,anhangstart=0q=Am+Heidstammhl.fl=betreffwt=standardfq=hl=truerows=10version=2.2}
hits=14 status=0 QTime=244
Thanks!
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
Actually, I wouldn't count on it and just specify index and query sides
explicitly. Just to play it safe.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Marian Steinbach mar...@sendung.de wrote:
2012/2/3 Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com:
What about query side of the field?
It's identical. At least that's
... was there literally a + in the query or was that
urlencoded? Try debugQuery=true for both queries and see what you get for
the query parsing output.
Erik
On Feb 3, 2012, at 14:18 , Dmitry Kan wrote:
Actually, I wouldn't count on it and just specify index and query sides
An offtopic: as some of my questions went unnoticed too, I could recommend
asking them somewhere else in parallel, for example: stackoverflow.com.
But as SOLR and its ecosystem sometimes pose tough questions and
problems, stackoverflow can ignore them as well. Anyhow, just another
opportunity..
as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Fail-to-compile-Java-code-trying-to-use-SolrJ-with-Solr-tp3708902p3708923.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry
, continue searching with the
remaining shard set.
What would be the proven way to achieve this?
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
will have to do a load test to identify the cutoff point to begin
using the strategy of shards.
Thanks
2012/1/24, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com:
Hi,
The article you gave mentions 13GB of index size. It is quite small
index
from our perspective. We have noticed, that at least solr
Hi,
The article you gave mentions 13GB of index size. It is quite small index
from our perspective. We have noticed, that at least solr 3.4 has some sort
of choking point with respect to growing index size. It just becomes
substantially slower than what we need (a query on avg taking more than
but when I remove the filter the size decreases but in
either case I am seeing the leading wild card query working.
-Shyam
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:57 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question
Dimitry,
Completed a clean index and I still see the same behavior.
Did not use Luke but from the search page we use leading wild card search
is working.
-Shyam
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 5:07 PM
To: solr-user
name=defTypeedismax/str
str name=qf
title^15.0 indexed_content^1.0 attachment_titles^5.0
attachment_bodies^1.0
/str
/lst
/requestHandler
-Shyam
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 4:20 PM
To: solr
. Maybe more. It depends.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Daniel,
My index is 6,5G. I'm sure it can be bigger. facet.limit we ask for is
beyond 100 thousand. It is sub-second speed. I run it with -Xms1024m
-Xmx12000m under tomcat
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
http://localhost:7070/solr/docs/admin/analysis.jsp passed the query
*lock and did not find ReversedWildcardFilterFactory to the indexer or any
other filters that could do the reversing.
-Shyam
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:26 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Question on Reverse Indexing
OK. Not sure what is your system architecture there, but could your queries
stay cached in some server caches
into a text_rev field? I *think* that it only
needs to be in text_rev, but I want to make sure before I go mucking
with my schema.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
OK, let me clarify it:
if solrconfig has maxBooleanClauses set to 1000 for example, than queries
with clauses more than 1000 in number will be rejected with the mentioned
exception.
What I want to do is automatically split such queries into sub-queries
the Java Heap size for this shard? Or is
there another method to avoid this slow calls?
Thank you
Daniel
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
the Solr
instance?
Thanks
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
I had a similar problem for a similar task. And in my case merging the
results from two shards turned out to be a culprit. If you can logically
store your data just in one shard, your
didn't say
how, and in your followup quesiton, it sounds like you are still hitting
the limit of maxBooleanClauses.
So what exactly have you changed/done that is done and what is the
new problem?
-Hoss
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
on resultset count.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
You could do this on the client side, just read 10 first facets off the
top
of the list and mark the remaining as Others.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Manish Bafna
manish.bafna...@gmail.comwrote
:49 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
I need to split the incoming original facet query into a list of
sub-queries. The logic is done and each sub-query gets added into outgoing
queue with rb.addRequest(), where rb is instance of ResponseBuilder.
In the logs I see
submitted too. Is there a way of suppressing the original query?
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
-to-force-substitutions-in-data-tp3646195p3646195.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
with non-intersecting hits.
That practically means, that the merger should simply concatenate the
shard results into one list (automatically pre-sorted by design).
Can something be improved in the SOLR merger facet logic here? Should we
look at something else as well?
--
Thanks,
Dmitry Kan
at 1:56 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
This might be not the right place to ask the jmx specific questions, but
I
decided to try, as we are polling SOLR statistics through jmx.
We currently have two solr cores with different schemas A and B being run
under
That's absolutely right. Thanks for the suggestion.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Gora Mohanty g...@mimirtech.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we don't use multicore feature of SOLR, so in our case SOLR
instances
are just separate
Hello Nagendra,
Congratulations on the new release!
In terms of downloading: does one need to be registered on the site do
download the bundle? The download links lead to
http://solr-ra.tgels.org/solr-ra.jsp.
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Nagendra Nagarajayya
nnagaraja
going
to see under solr/ ?
From the numbers (e.g. numDocs of searcher), jconsole see the stats of A.
Where do stats of B go? Or is firstly activated core will capture the jmx
pipe and won't let B's stats to go through?
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
Solved by exposing jmx only on one of the cores, as it is of a more
interest than the other one.
Dmitry
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
This might be not the right place to ask the jmx specific questions, but I
decided to try, as we
the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
-monitoring.org/plugins/search?keyword=solr
Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com writes:
Thanks, Justin. With zabbix I can gather jmx exposed stats from SOLR, how
about munin, what protocol / way it uses to accumulate stats? It wasn't
obvious from their online documentation...
On Mon, Dec 12
You can disable stemming in a copy field. So you need to define one field
with your input data on which stemming will be done and the other field
(copy field), on which stemming will not be done. Then on the client you
can decide which field to search against.
Dmitry
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:00
Maybe you should index your values differently? Here is what Lucene's 2.9
javadoc says:
To use this, you must first index the numeric values using
NumericFieldhttp://lucene.apache.org/java/2_9_0/api/all/org/apache/lucene/document/NumericField.html(expert:
indexes that handle the queries, while our master handles
updates/commits.
Justin
Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com writes:
Justin, in terms of the overhead, have you noticed if Munin puts much of
it
when used in production? In terms of the solr farm: how big is a shard's
index (given
If you allow me to chime in, is there a way to check for which
DirectoryFactory is in use, if
${solr.directoryFactory:solr.StandardDirectoryFactory} has been configured?
Dmitry
2011/12/12 Yury Kats yuryk...@yahoo.com
On 12/11/2011 4:57 AM, Rohit wrote:
What are the difference in the
, multipled by some
constant (i think it's 2 but it might be higher) in order to over
request facet constriant counts from each shard to aggregate them.
the dominant factor in the slow speed you are seeing is most likeley
Network IO between the shards.
-Hoss
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
to show graphs of loads, e.g. cache counts or CPU load, in
parallel to a console log or to an http request log??
I am working on such a tool currently but I have a bad feeling of
reinventing the wheel.
thanks in advance
Paul
Le 8 déc. 2011 à 08:53, Dmitry Kan a écrit :
Otis, Tomás: thanks
to a console log or to an http request log??
I am working on such a tool currently but I have a bad feeling of
reinventing the wheel.
thanks in advance
Paul
Le 8 déc. 2011 à 08:53, Dmitry Kan a écrit :
Otis, Tomás: thanks for the great links!
2011/12/7 Tomás Fernández Löbbe
, increase the maxsize
value to your acceptable limit.
Regards
Pravesh
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/cache-monitoring-tools-tp3566645p3566811.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Dmitry Kan [via Lucene]
ml-node+s472066n351...@n3.nabble.com wrote:
If you mean debugging the queries, you can use eclipse+jetty plugin setup
(
http://code.google.com/p/run-jetty-run/) with solr web app (
http://hokiesuns.blogspot.com/2010/01/setting-up
tool. See
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrJmx
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, we do require that much.
Ok, thanks, I will try increasing the maxsize.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:56 AM, pravesh suyalprav...@yahoo.com wrote:
facet.limit
The culprit seems to be the merger (frontend) SOLR. Talking to one shard
directly takes substantially less time (1-2 sec).
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
Tomás: thanks. The page you gave didn't mention cache specifically, is
there more documentation
-and-lucidworks-with-zabbix/
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
The culprit seems to be the merger (frontend) SOLR. Talking to one shard
directly takes substantially less time (1-2 sec).
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote
/
/analyzer
/fieldType
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
out
with this.
Thank u in advance
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-request-handler-queries-in-fiddler-tp3564260p3564260.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
this and review how it will works
Thanks, Dmitry
Any another ideas?
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
Is this log from the frontend SOLR (aggregator) or from a shard?
Can you merge, e.g. 3 shards together or is it much effort for your
team
am doing wrong?
Regards,
Siva
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Search-on-multiple-fields-is-not-working-tp3530145p3530145.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
Erick
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Erick. I was in fact reading the patch (the one attached as a
file to the aforementioned jira) you updated sometime yesterday. I'll
watch the issue, but as said the change of a hard-coded boolean to its
Hello,
Is this log from the frontend SOLR (aggregator) or from a shard?
Can you merge, e.g. 3 shards together or is it much effort for your team?
In our setup we currently have 16 shards with ~30GB each, but we rarely
search in all of them at once.
Best,
Dmitry
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:12 PM,
aggregator
Can you merge, e.g. 3 shards together or is it much effort for your team?
Yes, we can merge. We'll try to do this and review how it will works
Thanks, Dmitry
Any another ideas?
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Is this log from
. You'll have to change it after
applying
the patch for this to work for you. Should be trivial, I'll leave a note
in the
code about this, look for SOLR-2438 in the 3x code line for the place
to change.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Erick.
Do
if that worked for you.
But you can't do any of this until the JIRA (SOLR-2438) is
marked Resolution: Fixed.
Don't be fooled by Fix Version. Fix Version simply says
that those are the earliest versions it *could* go in.
Best
Erick
Best
Erick
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Dmitry Kan dmitry
Thanks Erick.
Do you think the patch you are working on will be applicable as well to 3.4?
Best,
Dmitry
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:06 AM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.comwrote:
As it happens I'm working on SOLR-2438 which should address this. This
patch
will provide two things:
The
,
Dmitry Kan
://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/LuceneFAQ#Are_Wildcard.2C_Prefix.2C_and_Fuzzy_queries_case_sensitive.3F
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
. For
clarification see source code of SolrQueryParser.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
about the X so that we can understand the
: full issue. Perhaps the best solution doesn't involve Y at all?
: See Also: http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341
-Hoss
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Koji Sekiguchi k...@r.email.ne.jp wrote:
(11/09/14 15:54), Dmitry Kan wrote:
Hello list,
Not sure how many of you are still using solr 1.4 in production, but here
is
an issue with highlighting, that we've noticed:
The query is:
(drill AND ships) OR rigs
Excerpt from
document should satisfy the query (ie it probably
has ships/s somewhere else in it), but each snippet won't generally have all
the terms.
-Mike
On 9/14/2011 2:54 AM, Dmitry Kan wrote:
Hello list,
Not sure how many of you are still using solr 1.4 in production, but here
is
an issue
again
Rohit
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 September 2011 10:23
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Out of memory
Hi,
OK 64GB fits into one shard quite nicely in our setup. But I have never
used
multicore setup. In total you
...@in-rev.com wrote:
It's happening more in search and search has become very slow particularly
on the core with 69GB index data.
Regards,
Rohit
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 September 2011 07:51
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject
(semisubmersibles and
drillships) are 21 deepwater lt;emdrillinglt;/em
/str
/arr
/lst
Why did solr highlight drilling even though there is no ships in the
text?
*
*--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
), the results you are getting, and the results
you are expecting? actually providing the response xml is very helpful.
(change the fl to hide any fields you consider sensitive)
-Hoss
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
Hi Rohit,
Do you use caching?
How big is your index in size on the disk?
What is the stack trace contents?
The OOM problems that we have seen so far were related to the
index physical size and usage of caching. I don't think we have ever found
the exact cause of these problems, but sharding has
: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: 14 September 2011 08:15
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Out of memory
Hi Rohit,
Do you use caching?
How big is your index in size on the disk?
What is the stack trace contents?
The OOM problems that we have seen so far were related
the merging SOLR combine the results
from shard, when they exceed the facet.limit?
Please ask questions, if something isn't clear or you need more details.
Thanks,
Dmitry Kan
PathHierarchyTokenizerFactory is quite the answer either.
What kind of Solr magic, if any, am I looking for here?
Thanks in advance for any help or advice.
Michael
---
Michael B. Klein
Digitization Workflow Engineer
Stanford University Libraries
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
scaling.
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
twitter.com/DmitryKan
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Bernd Fehling
bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de wrote:
On 02.08.2011 21:00, Shawn Heisey wrote:
...
I did try some early tests with a single large index. Performance was
pretty decent once it got warmed up
archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
.n3.nabble.com/any-detailed-tutorials-on-plugin-development-tp3177821p3184160.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
...
-
Zeki ama calismiyor... Calissa yapar...
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/any-detailed-tutorials-on-plugin-development-tp3177821p3177821.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
was typying this on-the-go from my phone, I meant LuceneQParserPlugin of
course.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
you can try extending LuceneQParser. In its createParser method
(lucene 2.9.3 and solr 1.4) you can analyze the input query in the
param q
a
completely blank slate so any guidance would be appreciated.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
.n3.nabble.com/sorting-on-date-field-in-facet-query-tp2956540p2961612.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
Hi all!
solr.StandardTokenizerFactory -- is it possible to see the full description
of its behaviour for solr.1.4 somewhere? Wiki
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.StandardTokenizerFactory
is
very short..
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
,
The underlying Lucene implementation is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/java/tags/lucene_2_9_1/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/standard/
StandardTokenizerImpl.jflex is probably where you should start.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Kan [mailto:dmitry@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:21 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: solr.StandardTokenizerFactory: more info needed
Hi Steven,
This looks very good. Thanks. Do I understand correctly, that I were
ones of your own to exercise your changes to insure
that they do what you want
Best
Erick
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com wrote:
OK, thanks. Do you know if there are tokenizer specific tests to run
after
compilation?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:25 PM
=English
protected=protwords.txt /
/analyzer
/fieldType
Thanks in advance
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/how-to-improve-query-result-time-tp3136554p3136554.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
to it on the Solr end. Our previous implementation used a
QueryWrapperFilter along with some custom code to build a new Filter from
the query provided. How can we plug this filter into Solr?
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
this message and its attachments, along with
any copies thereof. This message does not create any contractual obligation
on behalf of the sender or Law Bulletin Publishing Company.
Thank you.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
will
make it easier for others to find the right solution for themselves.
Thanks,
Shawn
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
passed
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Esteban Donato
esteban.don...@gmail.comwrote:
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
sequence (ngram)
length.
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have details of how to generate a tag cloud of popular terms
across an entire data set and then also across a query?
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
a 'give me only facets related to the most
relevant docs in the results' functionality.
Any idea on how to do that?
Tommaso
2011/6/16 Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SimpleFacetParameters
facet.offset
This param indicates an offset into the list of constraints
param.
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
- Original Message
From: Dmitry Kan dmitry@gmail.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 12:56:15 PM
Subject: Re: query
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kan
Hi Otis,
I have fixed it by assigning the value to rb same as assigned to sreq:
rb.shards = shards.toString().split(,);
not tested that fully yet, but distributed faceting works at least on my pc
_3 shards 1 router_ setup.
Dmitry
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Dmitry Kan dmitry
401 - 500 of 538 matches
Mail list logo
