On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:51 AM, prasad deshpande
prasad.deshpand...@gmail.com wrote:
The size of docs can be huge, like suppose there are 800MB pdf file to index
it I need to translate it in UTF-8 and then send this file to index.
PDF is binary AFAIK... you shouldn't need to do any charset
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Simon Wistow si...@thegestalt.org wrote:
If I do
qt=dismax
fq=uid:1
(or any other positive number) then queries are as quick as normal - in
the 20ms range.
However, any of
fq=uid:\-1
or
fq=uid:[* TO -1]
or
fq=uid:[-1 to -1]
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Thumuluri, Sai
sai.thumul...@verizonwireless.com wrote:
I recently upgraded to Solr 1.4.1 from Solr 1.3 and with the upgrade
used edismax query parser. Here is my solrconfig.xml . When I search for
mw verification and payment information - I get no results with
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Xavier SCHEPLER
xavier.schep...@sciences-po.fr wrote:
Ok,
I tryed to use nested queries this way:
wt=jsonindent=truefl=qFRq=sarkozy
_query_:{!tag=test}chiracfacet=truefacet.field={!ex=test}studyDescriptionId
It resulted in this error:
facet_counts:{
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Julian Hille julian.hi...@netimpact.de wrote:
Hi,
if i search for a german umlaut like ä or ö i get something like weird
conversions from latin to utf in query response. The encoding of the result
is ok,
but not the you queried for this part. There is my ä
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Stephen Boesch java...@gmail.com wrote:
Solr/lucene newbie here ..
We would like searches against a solr/lucene index to immediately be able to
view data that was added. I stress small amount of new data given that
any significant amount would require
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Andy angelf...@yahoo.com wrote:
So by default Solr will not return documents that don't contain the specified
group.field?
Solr will. Documents without a value for that field should be grouped
under the null value.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
[junit] WARNING: test class left thread running:
Thread[MultiThreadedHttpConnectionManager cleanup,5,main]
I suppose we should move MultiThreadedHttpConnectionManager to CoreContainer.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Adam Estrada estrada.a...@gmail.com wrote:
I would gladly update this page if I could just get it working.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpatialSearch
Everything on that wiki page should work w/o patches on trunk.
I just ran through all of the examples, and
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
hmm, i think you are actually running out of virtual address space,
even on 64-bit!
I don't know if there are any x86 processors that allow 64 bits of
address space yet.
AFAIK, they are mostly 48 bit.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Dyer, James james.d...@ingrambook.com wrote:
The phrase solution works as does escaping the space with a backslash:
fq=Product:Electric\ Guitar ... actually a lot of characters need to be
escaped like this (amperstands and parenthesis come to mind)...
One
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rok Rejc rokrej...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I have created an index with aprox. 1.1 billion of documents (around 500GB)
running on Solr 1.4.1. (64 bit JVM).
I want to enable faceted navigation on am int field, which contains around
250 unique values.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
I'm not sure if there is a issue open, but I know I've talked w/ Yonik about
this and a few other changes to the DirectUpdateHandler2 in the past. It
does indeed need to be fixed.
It stems from the APIs that were
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
If you are using Lucene's trunk (nightly build) release, read on...
I just committed a change (for LUCENE-2811) that changes the index
format on trunk, thus breaking (w/ likely strange exceptions on
reading
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Dennis Gearon gear...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
That easy, huh? Heck, this gets better and better.
BTW, how about escaping?
The CSV escaping? It's configurable to allow for loading different
CSV dialects.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateCSV
By default it uses
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
If you are doing false deletions (calling .updateDocument when in fact
the Term you are replacing cannot exist) it'd be best if possible to
change the app to not call .updateDocument if you know the Term
=solr.FastLRUCache
size=512
initialSize=512
autowarmCount=0/
queryResultCache
class=solr.LRUCache
size=512
initialSize=512
autowarmCount=0/
Any help is appreciated.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com
wrote:
On Sun
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:47 PM, John Russell jjruss...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, you read my mind. We are committing very frequently. We are trying to
get as close to realtime access to the stuff we put in as possible. Our
current commit time is... ahem every 4 seconds.
Is that insane?
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Yonik, how will maxWarmingSearchers in this scenario effect replication? If
a slave is pulling down new indexes so quickly that the warming searchers
would ordinarily pile up, but maxWarmingSearchers is set to 1
Perhaps try overriding indexedToReadable() also?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Viswa S svis...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hello,
We implemented an IP-Addr field type which internally stored the ips as
hex-ed string (e.g. 192.2.103.29 will be stored as
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 2:18 AM, bbarani bbar...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, if I try to sort the query result from shards.. will sorting happens
on the consolidated data or on each individual core data?
Both - to find the top 10 docs by any sort, the top 10 docs from each
shard are collected and
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Markus Jelsma
markus.jel...@openindex.io wrote:
I know, but since it's an Apache component throwing the exception, i'd figure
someone just might know more about this.
That's fine - it could be a Solr bug too.
IMO, solr-user traffic just needs to be solr related
We're holding a free webinar about relevancy enhancements in our
commercial version of Solr. Details below.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
-
Join us for a free technical webcast
Better Search Results Faster with
Hoss had a great webinar on faceting that also covered how you could
do hierarchical.
http://www.lucidimagination.com/solutions/webcasts/faceting
See taxonomy facets, about 28 minutes in.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Andy angelf...@yahoo.com wrote:
I
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Kaktu Chakarabati jimmoe...@gmail.com wrote:
Can I do this? i.e change that value in schema, and then incrementally
re-index documents to populate it?
would that work? what would be returned if at all for documents that werent
re-indexed post-schema change?
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:03 AM, ssetem sse...@googlemail.com wrote:
I wondered if it is possible to sort groups by the total within the group,
and to bring back total amount groups?
That is planned, but not currently implemented.
You can use faceting to get both totals and sort by highest total
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:07 AM, ssetem sse...@googlemail.com wrote:
Thanks for the reply,
How would i get the total amount of possible facets(non zero), I've searched
around but have no luck.
Only current way would be to request them all.
Just like field collapsing, this is a number we don't
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Brian Whitman br...@echonest.com wrote:
Hi, if you comment out the block in solrconfig.xml
!--
autoCommit
maxDocs1/maxDocs
maxTime60/maxTime
/autoCommit
--
Does this mean that (a) commits never happen automatically or (b) some
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Shawn Heisey s...@elyograg.org wrote:
I have seen this. In Solr 1.4.1, the .fdt, .fdx, and the .tv* files do not
segment, but all the other files do. I can't remember whether it behaves
the same under 3.1, or whether it also creates these files in each segment.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Martin Grotzke
martin.grot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Still I'm wondering, why this issue does not occur with the plain
example solr setup with 2 indexed docs. Any explanation?
It's an old option you have in your solrconfig.xml that causes a
different code path to
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Robert Petersen rober...@buy.com wrote:
My question is this. Why in the world would all of my slaves, after
running fine for some days, suddenly all at the exact same minute
experience OOM heap errors and go dead?
If there is no change in query traffic when
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Peter Sturge peter.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
If a Solr index is running at the time of a system halt, this can
often corrupt a segments file, requiring the index to be -fix'ed by
rewriting the offending file.
Really? That shouldn't be possible (if you mean the
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Ahmet Arslan iori...@yahoo.com wrote:
in Solr admin (http://localhost:8180/services/admin/)
I can specify something like:
+category_id:200 +xxx:300
but how can I specify a sort option?
sort:category_id+asc
There is an [FULL INTERFACE] /admin/form.jsp link
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Dennis Gearon gear...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
What is the recommended Solr version and/or plugin combination to get
geospatial
search up and running the quickest and easiest?
It depends on what capabilities you need.
The current state of what is committed to
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:59 AM, sivaprasad sivaprasa...@echidnainc.com wrote:
Even after expanding the synonyms also i am unable to get same results.
What you are trying to do should work with index-time synonym expansion.
Just make sure to remove the synonym filter at query time (or use a
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:59 AM, sivaprasad sivaprasa...@echidnainc.com
wrote:
Even after expanding the synonyms also i am unable to get same results.
What you are trying to do should work with index-time
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Chamnap Chhorn
chamnapchh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have one question related to single word token with dismax query. In order
to be found I need to add the quote around the search query all the time.
This is quite hard for me to do since it is part of full text
://www.lucidimagination.com
On 11/19/10, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Chamnap Chhorn
chamnapchh...@gmail.com wrote:
I have one question related to single word token with dismax query. In
order
to be found I need to add the quote around the search query all
We've recently added randomized testing for result grouping that
resulted in finding + fixing a number of bugs.
I've you've been using this feature, you should move to the latest
trunk version.
I've also added a section at the bottom of the wiki page to list
current limitations.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Dennis Gearon gear...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
hashing is not 100% guaranteed to produce unique values.
But if you go to enough bits with a good hash function, you can get
the odds lower than the odds of something else changing the value like
cosmic rays flipping a
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Dennis Gearon gear...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Read up on WikiPedia, but I believe that no Hash Function is much good above
50%
of the address space it generates.
50% is way to high - collisions will happen before that.
But given that something like MD5 has 128
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Viswa S svis...@hotmail.com wrote:
Apologies for starting a new thread again, my mailing list subscription
didn't finalize till later than Yonik's response.
Using Field1:Val1 AND (*:* NOT Field2:Val2) works, thanks.
Does my original query Field1:Value1 AND
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Leonardo Menezes
leonardo.menez...@googlemail.com wrote:
try
Field1:Val1 AND (*:* NOT Field2:Val2), that shoud work ok
That should be equivalent to Field1:Val1 -Field2:Val2
You only need the *:* trick if all of the clauses of a boolean query
are negative.
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
The above wiki page seems to be out of date. Reading the comments in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-236 it seems like group should
be replaced with collapse.
The Wiki page is not expansive, but I've
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
On 13.11.2010, at 10:30, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org
wrote:
The above wiki page seems to be out of date. Reading the comments in
https
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Steven A Rowe sar...@syr.edu wrote:
Looks to me like the returned value is in a Solr-internal form of XML
character escaping: \u is represented as #0; and \u0008 is represented
as #8;. (The escaping code is in
We're holding a free webinar on migration from FAST to Solr. Details below.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
=
Solr To The Rescue: Successful Migration From FAST ESP to Open Source
Search Based on Apache Solr
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Papp Richard ccode...@gmail.com wrote:
this is fantastic, but can you tell any time it will be ready ?
It already is ;-) Grab the latest trunk or the latest nightly build.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Papp Richard ccode...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yonik,
I've just tried the latest stable version from nightly build:
apache-solr-4.0-2010-11-05_08-06-28.war
I have some concerns however: I have 3 documents; 2 in the first group, 1
in the 2nd group.
1. I got
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Markus Jelsma
markus.jel...@openindex.io wrote:
The question remains, why does the title field return a fieldNorm=0 for many
queries?
Because the index-time boost was set to 0 when the doc was indexed. I
can't say how that happened... look to your indexing code.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Markus Jelsma
markus.jel...@openindex.io wrote:
I've done some testing with the example docs and it behaves similar when there
is a zero doc boost. Luke, however, does not show me the index-time boosts.
Remember that the norm is a product of the length norm and
Regarding Negative or zero value for fieldNorm, I don't see any
negative fieldNorms here... just very small positive ones?
Anyway the fieldNorm is the product of the lengthNorm and the
index-time boost of the field (which is itself the product of the
index time boost on the document and the index
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
How dynamic is this list? Is it feasable to add a field to your docs like
blacklisteddocs, and at editorial's discretion add values to that field
like app1, app2?
At that point you can just filter them out via a
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Simon Wistow si...@thegestalt.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:42:51PM -0700, Lance Norskog said:
You should query against the indexer. I'm impressed that you got 5s
replication to work reliably.
That's our current solution - I was just wondering if there
2010/11/1 Koji Sekiguchi k...@r.email.ne.jp:
With solr example, using facet.field=text creates UnInvertedField
for the text field in fieldValueCache. After that, I saw stats page
and I was surprised at counters in *filterCache* were up:
Do they cause of big words in UnInvertedField?
Yes.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Tod listac...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to exclude certain facet results from a facet query. It seems to
work but rather than being excluded from the facet list its returned with a
count of zero.
If you don't want to see 0 counts, use facet.mincount=1
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Papp Richard ccode...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm using Solr 4.0 with grouping (field collapsing), but unfortunately I
can't solve the pagination.
It's not implemented yet, but I'm working on that right now.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Ryan Walker r...@recruitmilitary.com wrote:
We are launching a new version of our job board helping returning veterans
find a civilian job, and we chose Solr and Sunspot[1] to power our search. We
really didn't consider the power users in the HR world who are
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Ezequiel Calderara ezech...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all guys!
I'm in a weird situation here.
We have index a set of documents which are ordered using a linked list (each
documents has the reference of the previous and the next).
Is there a way when sorting in the
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: This is a limitation in the SolrCache API.
: The key into the cache does not contain rows, so the cache returns the
: first 10 docs and increments it's hit count. Then the cache user
: (SolrIndexSearcher)
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: Why don't we just include the start rows (modulo the window size) in
: the cache key?
:
: The implementation of equals() would be rather difficult... actually
: impossible w/o abusing the semantics.
: It
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
Is it OK to call and increment a Searcher ref (i.e. SolrCore.getSearcher())
in a SolrEventListener.postCommit() hook as long as I decrement it when I am
done? I need to get a handle on an IndexReader so I can dump
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Sergey Bartunov sbos@gmail.com wrote:
I did it just as you recommended. Solr indexes files around 15kb, but
no more. The same effect was with patched constants
Lucene also has max token sizes it can index.
IIRC, lengths used to be stored inline with the
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Sergey Bartunov sbos@gmail.com wrote:
It's a kind of research. There is no particular practical use case as
far as I know.
Do you know how to set all these max token lengths?
It's a practical limit given how things are coded, not an arbitrary
one. Given
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Sergey Bartunov sbos@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to force solr to index words which length is more than 255
If the field is not a text field, the Solr's default analyzer is used,
which currently limits the token to 256 bytes.
Out of curiosity, what's your
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
the default query parser
doesn't support range queries with mixed upper/lower bound inclusion.
This has just been added to trunk.
Things like [0 TO 100} now work.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Shawn Heisey s...@elyograg.org wrote:
On 10/22/2010 3:01 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
the default query parser
doesn't support range queries with mixed upper/lower bound inclusion
2010/10/21 kafka0102 kafka0...@163.com:
I found the problem's cause.It's the DocSetCollector. my fitler query
result's size is about 300,so the DocSetCollector.getDocSet() is
OpenBitSet. And 300 OpenBitSet.fastSet(doc) op is too slow.
As I said in my other response to you, that's a
Careful comparing apples to oranges ;-)
For one, your lucene code doesn't retrieve stored fields.
Did you try the solr request more than once (with a different q, but
the same filters?)
Also, by default, Solr independently caches the filters. This can be
higher up-front cost, but a win when
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Burton-West, Tom tburt...@umich.edu wrote:
At the Lucene Revolution conference I asked about efficiently building a
filter query from an external list of Solr unique ids.
Yeah, I've thought about a special query parser and query to deal with
this (relatively)
This is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2142
I'll look into it soon.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Pradeep Singh pksing...@gmail.com wrote:
Faceting blows up when the field has no data. And this seems to be random.
Sometimes it will work
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Lukas Kahwe Smith m...@pooteeweet.org wrote:
the current confusing list of branches is a result of the merge of the lucene
and solr svn repositories. what baffpes me is that so far the countless
plea's for at least a rough roadmap or even just explanation for
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
I'm kind of confused about Solr development plans in general, highlighted by
this thread.
I think 1.4.1 is the latest officially stable release, yes?
Why is there both a 1.5 and a 3.x, anyway? Not to mention a 4.x?
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Thanks Yonik! So I gather that the 1.5 branch has essentially been
abandoned, we can pretend it doesn't exist at all, it's been entirely
superceded by the 3.x branch, with the changes made just for the purposes of
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Mike Squire mike.squ...@gmail.com wrote:
As pointed out before it would be useful to have some kind of
documented road map for development, and some kind of indication of
how close certain versions are to release.
Such things have proven to be very unreliable
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
I believe that should work fine in Solr 1.4.1. Creating a field with just
first letter of author is definitely the right (possibly only) way to allow
facetting on first letter of author's name.
I have very voluminous
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Jan Høydahl / Cominvent
jan@cominvent.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure the 2nd phase to fetch doc-summaries goes directly to same
server as first phase. But what if you stick a LB in between?
A related point - the load balancing implementation that's part of
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:28 AM, PeterKerk vettepa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the quick reply :)
I downloaded the latest version from the trunk. Got it up and running, and
got the error below:
Hopefully the QuickStart on the wiki all worked for you,
but you only got the error when
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:42 AM, PeterKerk vettepa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Im now thinking I downloaded the wrong solr zip, I tried this one:
https://hudson.apache.org/hudson/job/Solr-trunk/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/trunk/solr/dist/apache-solr-4.0-2010-10-12_08-05-48.zip
In that example
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 10:06 AM, PeterKerk vettepa...@hotmail.com wrote:
haha ;)
But so I DO have the right solr version?
Anyways...I have added the lines you mentioned, what else can I do?
The fact that the geolocation field does not show up in the results means that
it's not getting
You may want to check the docs, which were recently updated to reflect
the state of trunk:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpatialSearch
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:49 PM, PeterKerk vettepa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hey Grant,
Just came accross this post of
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:07 PM, PeterKerk vettepa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Ok, so does this actually say:
for now you have to do calculations based on bounding box instead of great
circle?
I tried to make the documentation a little simpler... there's
- geofilt... filters within a radius of d
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Peter Keegan peterlkee...@gmail.com wrote:
I listened with great interest to Grant's presentation of the NoSQL
comparisons/alternatives to Solr/Lucene. It sounds like the jury is still
out on much of this. Here's a use case that might favor using a NoSQL
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Renee Sun renee_...@mcafee.com wrote:
Hi Yonik,
I attached the solrconfig.xml to you in previous post, and we do have
firstSearch and newSearch hook ups.
I commented them out, all 130 cores loaded up in 1 minute, same as in solr
1.3. total memory took about
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:09 PM, webdev1977 webdev1...@gmail.com wrote:
1. I noticed that it said that the type of LatLongType can not be
mulitvalued. Does that mean that I can not have multiple lat/lon values for
one document.
That means that if you want to have multiple points per document,
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:40 PM, webdev1977 webdev1...@gmail.com wrote:
Or.. do you mean each field must have a unique name, but both be of type
latLon(solr.LatLonType).
work x,y/work
homex,y/home
Yes.
If the statement directly above is true (I hope that it is not), how does
one
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
Dynamic field types. You can configure it such that anything ending
with _latlon is of type LatLonType.
Perhaps we should do this in the example schema.
Looks like we already have it:
dynamicField name=*_p
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Renee Sun renee_...@mcafee.com wrote:
Hi -
I posted this problem but no response, I guess I need to post this in the
Solr-User forum. Hopefully you will help me on this.
We were running Solr 1.3 for long time, with 130 cores. Just upgrade to Solr
1.4, then
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Robert Thayer
robert.tha...@bankserv.com wrote:
On the http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery page, the following query
function is listed:
q={!func}add($v1,$v2)v1=sqrt(popularity)v2=100.0
When run against the default solr instance, server returns the
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Jan Høydahl / Cominvent
jan@cominvent.com wrote:
Have anyone written any conditional functions yet for use in Function Queries?
Nope - but it makes sense and has been on my list of things to do for
a long time.
-Y
http://lucenerevolution.org Lucene/Solr
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Huh, okay, I didn't know that #2 happened at all. Can you explain or point me
to documentation to explain when it happens? I'm afraid I'm having trouble
understanding if the analyzer returns more than one position
2010/9/23 Koji Sekiguchi k...@r.email.ne.jp:
(10/09/23 18:14), Koji Sekiguchi wrote:
I'm using recent committed field collapsing / result grouping
feature in trunk.
I'm confusing matches parameter in the result at the second
sample output of Wiki:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:30 PM, PeterKerk vettepa...@hotmail.com wrote:
I have this in my query:
q=*:*facet.query=location_rating_total:[3 TO 100]
And this document:
result name=response numFound=6 start=0 maxScore=1.0
-
doc
float name=score1.0/float
str name=id1/str
int
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
The field type in a standard schema.xml that's defined as integer is NOT
sortable.
Right - before 1.4. There is no integer field type in 1.4 and
beyond in the example schema.
You can not sort on this and get what you
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:12 PM, dan sutton danbsut...@gmail.com wrote:
I was looking at the LatLonType and how it might represent multiple lon/lat
values ... it looks to me like the lat would go in {latlongfield}_0_LatLon
and the long in {latlongfield}_1_LatLon ... how then if we have
I think we aim for a stable trunk (4.0-dev) too, as we always have
(in the functional sense... i.e. operate correctly, don't crash, etc).
The stability is more a reference to API stability - the Java APIs are
much more likely to change on trunk. Solr's *external* APIs are much
less likely to
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree it's mainly API wise, but there are other issues - largely due
to Lucene right now - consider the bugs that have been dug up this year
on the 4.x line because flex has been such a large rewrite deep in
Lucene.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 4:12 PM, facholi rfach...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like a json result like that:
{
id:2342,
name:Abracadabra,
metadatas: [
{type:tag, name:tutorial},
{type:value, name:2323.434/434},
]
}
Do you mean JSON with the tags not quoted (that's
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:01 PM, andrewdps mstpa...@gmail.com wrote:
I still get the same error when I try to index the mrc file...
If you get the exact same error, then you are still using GCJ.
When you type java it's probably going to GCJ because of your path
(i.e. change it or directly
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:30 PM, onlinespend...@gmail.com
onlinespend...@gmail.com wrote:
I am planning on creating a website that has some SOLR search capabilities
for the users, and was also planning on using PHP for the server-side
scripting.
My goal is to find the most efficient way to
1001 - 1100 of 2724 matches
Mail list logo
