Re: How Json facet API works with domains and facet functions?

If you search on the parents and want to match child documents, I think you want {!child} and not {!parent} in your queries or filters. fq={!child of=...}date_query_on_parents fq=child_prop:X For this specific example, you don't even need the block-join support in facets since the base domain

Re: Facet count mismatch between solr simple facet and Json facet API.

Are you using SolrCloud / distributed search? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7452 -Yonik On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Vishnu Mishra wrote: > Hi > > I am using solr 5.3.1 in my application. I have indexed field named given > below : > > multiValued="true"

Re: [Faceting] Exact Value Faceting VS ID Faceting

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Toke Eskildsen wrote: > If we had a hashing method String->long and guaranteed that there would > be no collisions (or we accepted the occasional faulty result), then we > could avoid the segment->global map as well as the centralized

Re: JSON facets and excluded queries

Here's a little tutorial on multi-select faceting w/ the JSON Facet API: http://yonik.com/multi-select-faceting/ -Yonik On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Aigner, Max wrote: > I'm currently evaluating Solr 5.3.1 for performance improvements with > faceting. > However,

Re: JSON facets and excluded queries

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Aigner, Max wrote: > Thanks, this is great :=)) > > I hadn't seen the domain:{excludeTags:...} syntax yet and it doesn't seem to > be working on 5.3.1 so I'm assuming this is work slated for 5.4 or 6. Did I > get that right? Hmmm, the

Re: JSON facets and excluded queries

OK, just fixed this in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8341 and that domain syntax will work in 5.4 I'll update my blog on multi-select faceting note that. -Yonik On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Yon

Re: JSON facets and excluded queries

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Aigner, Max <max.aig...@nordstrom.com> wrote: >> Thanks, this is great :=)) >> >> I hadn't seen the domain:{excludeTags:...} syntax yet and it doesn't seem

Re: Json Facet api on nested doc

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Mikhail Khludnev wrote: > Hello, > > I also played with json.facet, but couldn't achieve the desired result too. > > Yonik, Alessandro, > Do you think it's a new feature or it can be achieved with the current > implementation? Not sure

Re: Json facet api NullPointerException

Thanks for the report Yago, What version is this? -Yonik On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Yago Riveiro wrote: > Hi, > > I'm hitting this NullPointerException using the json facet API. > > Same query using Facet component is working. > > Json facet query: > > curl -s

Re: Json facet api NullPointerException

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Yago Riveiro wrote: > In my query I have > sort: index, > > And should be > > sort:{index:desc|asc} > > I think that the json parser should raise a “json parsing error” ... Yeah, either that or "index" should be synonymous with "index

Re: Parent/Child (Nested Document) Faceting

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Alessandro Benedetti wrote: > Anyway everything seems possible to me trough the ( I love it, can stop to > repeat it) Json Facet Approach. Thanks, the positive feedback definitely gives me motivation to keep improving it! -Yonik

Re: Parent/Child (Nested Document) Faceting

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Mikhail Khludnev wrote: > Yonik, > > I wonder is there a plan or a vision for something like > https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/search-aggregations-bucket-reverse-nested-aggregation.html > under JSON

Re: Costs/benefits of DocValues

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > Thank you Yonik. > > So I would probably advise then to "keep your indexed=true" and think > about _adding_ docValues when there is a memory pressure or when there > is clear performance issue for the

Re: Costs/benefits of DocValues

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Demian Katz wrote: > I understand that by adding "docValues=true" to some of my fields, I can > improve sorting/faceting performance. I don't think this is true in the general sense. docValues are built at index-time, so what you will

Re: Costs/benefits of DocValues

t to keep the "indexed=true" on the field as well. -Yonik > It would > make a VERY good article to have this clarified somehow by people in > the know. > > Regards, >Alex. > > Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs and even a newsletter: > ht

Re: child document faceting returning empty buckets

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Yangrui Guo wrote: > Just solved the problem by changing blockChildren:"content_type:children" > to blockParent:"content_type:children". Unless you're dealing with multiple levels, you may be using the wrong content_type value. That query

Re: MatchAllDocsQuery is much slower in solr5.3.1 compare to solr4.7

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote: > Just to be clear, I was suggesting that the filter query (fq) was slow That's a possibility. Filters were actually removed in Lucene, so it's a very different code path now. In 4.10, filters were first class, and

Re: Is it impossible to update an index that is undergoing an optimize?

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > The specific index update that fails during the optimize is the SolrJ > deleteByQuery call. deleteByQuery may be the outlier here... we have to jump through extra hoops internally because we don't know which documents it

Re: MatchAllDocsQuery is much slower in solr5.3.1 compare to solr4.7

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:30 PM, wei wrote: > in solr 5.3.1, there is actually a boost, and the score is product of boost > & queryNorm. Hmmm, well, it's worth putting on the list of stuff to investigate. Boosting was also changed in lucene. What happens if you try this

Re: MatchAllDocsQuery is much slower in solr5.3.1 compare to solr4.7

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:56 PM, wei wrote: > Good point! I tried that, on solr5 the query time is around 100-110ms, and > on solr4 it is around 60-63ms(very consistent). Solr5 is slower. When it's something easy, there comes a point when it makes sense to stop asking more

Re: Is it impossible to update an index that is undergoing an optimize?

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > Is there a decent API for getting uniqueKey? Not off the top of my head. I deeply regret making it configurable and not just using "id" ;-) -Yonik

Re: how to efficiently get sum of an int field

You can also try the new JSON Facet API if you are on a recent version of Solr. json.facet={x:"sum(myfield)"} http://yonik.com/solr-facet-functions/ -Yonik On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Renee Sun wrote: > Hi - > I have been using stats to get the sum of a field data

Re: how to efficiently get sum of an int field

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Renee Sun wrote: > Also Yonik, out of curiosity... when I run stats on a large msg set (such as > 200 million msgs), it tends to use a lot of memory, this should be expected > correct? With the stats component, yeah. > if I were able to use

Re: Is it impossible to update an index that is undergoing an optimize?

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > I had understood that since 4.0, Solr (Lucene) can continue to update an > index even while that index is optimizing. Yes, that should be the case. > I have discovered in the logs of my SolrJ index maintenance program

Re: SolrJ stalls/hangs on client.add(); and doesn't return

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:28 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > Try making batches of 1,000 docs and sending them through instead. The other thing about ConcurrentUpdateSolrClient is that it will create batches itself while streaming. For example, if you call add a number of

Re: missing in json facet does not work for stream?

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:55 AM, hao jin wrote: > Hi > I found when the method of json facet is set to stream, the "missing" is not > added to the result. > Is it designed or a known issue? You found an undocumented feature (method=stream) ;-) That facet method doesn't have

Re: missing in json facet does not work for stream?

supports sorting by term index order. Although if there is need/demand, we could also do a lightweight ordering over the buckets first (ordering by count or other facet function) and then still stream, creating the buckets and any sub-facets on the fly. -Yonik > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:

Re: Solr cross core join special condition

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Ryan Josal wrote: > I developed a join transformer plugin that did that (although it didn't > flatten the results like that). The one thing that was painful about it is > that the TextResponseWriter has references to both the IndexSchema and >

Re: faceting is unusable slow since upgrade to 5.3.0

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Uwe Reh <r...@hebis.uni-frankfurt.de> wrote: > Am 25.09.2015 um 05:16 schrieb Yonik Seeley: >> >> I did some performance benchmarks and opened an issue. It's bad. >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8096 > > &g

Re: faceting is unusable slow since upgrade to 5.3.0

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Alessandro Benedetti wrote: >There is an undocumented "method" parameter - I need to enable that to > >> allow switching between the docvalues approach and the UnInvertedField >> approach. >> > > Only to clarify, please correct me

Re: faceting is unusable slow since upgrade to 5.3.0

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Uwe Reh wrote: > our bibliographic index (~20M entries) runs fine with Solr 4.10.3 > With Solr 5.3 faceted searching is constantly incredibly slow (~ 20 seconds) [...] > > The 'fieldValueCache' seems to be unused (no inserts nor

Re: Different ports for search and upload request

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Siddhartha Singh Sandhu wrote: > Hey, > > Thank you for your reply. > > The use case would be that I can concurrently load data into my index via > one port and then make that(*data) available(NRT search) to user through > another high

Re: faceting is unusable slow since upgrade to 5.3.0

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed. Use of the fieldValueCache (UnInvertedField) was secretly > removed as part of LUCENE-5666, causing these performance regressions. I did some performance benchmarks and opened an issue. It'

Re: faceting is unusable slow since upgrade to 5.3.0

ssed anywhere ? > This could give very good insights on when to use them. > > Cheers > > 2015-09-24 14:58 GMT+01:00 Yonik Seeley <ysee...@gmail.com>: > >> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Uwe Reh <r...@hebis.uni-frankfurt.de> >> wrote: >> > our bibli

Re: Google didn't help on this one!

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Mark Fenbers wrote: > I'm working with the spellcheck component of Solr for the first time. I'm > using SolrJ, and when I submit my query, I get a Solr Exception: "Expected > mime type octet/stream but got text/html." > > What in the

Re: Issue while adding Long.MAX_VALUE to a TrieLong field

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Pushkar Raste wrote: Did you see my previous response to you today? http://markmail.org/message/wt6db4ocqmty5a42 Try querying a different way, like from the command line using curl, or from your browser, but not through the solr admin.

Re: Issue while adding Long.MAX_VALUE to a TrieLong field

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Pushkar Raste wrote: > Hi, > I am trying to following add document (value for price.long is > Long.MAX_VALUE) > > > 411 > one > 9223372036854775807 > > > However upon querying my collection value I get back

Re: Cached fq decreases performance

>> This is part of a bigger issue we should work at doing better at for >> Solr 6: debugability / supportability. >> For a specific request, what took up the memory, what cache misses or >> cache instantiations were there, how much request-specific memory was >> allocated, how much shared memory

Re: Cached fq decreases performance

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > Yonik, > > Is this all visible on query debug level? Nope, unfortunately not. This is part of a bigger issue we should work at doing better at for Solr 6: debugability / supportability. For a specific request,

Re: Cached fq decreases performance

On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Jeff Wartes wrote: > > I have a query like: > > q==enabled:true > > For purposes of this conversation, "fq=enabled:true" is set for every query, > I never open a new searcher, and this is the only fq I ever use, so the > filter cache size

Re: Difference between Legacy Facets and JSON Facets

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Toke Eskildsen wrote: > When incrementing counters for String faceting, segment ordinal -> index > ordinal mapping takes place. Legacy facets has a mechanism where temporary > segment-specific counters are used. These are updated

Re: Difference between Legacy Facets and JSON Facets

hat the problem mainly happen in the content field of the > collections with rich text document. > It works fine for other files, and also collections indexed with CSV > documents, even if the fieldType is text_general. > > Regards, > Edwin > > > On 2 September 2015

Re: Difference between Legacy Facets and JSON Facets

s the same as the Legacy Facet query of > http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?q=paint=true=content=0 > <http://27.54.41.220:8983/edm/collection1/select?q=paint=true=content=0> > ? > > > Regards, > Edwin > > > On 1 September 2015 at 23:24, Yonik

Re: Difference between Legacy Facets and JSON Facets

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo wrote: > No, I've tested it several times after committing it. Hmmm, well something is really wrong for this orders of magnitude difference. I've never seen anything like that and we should definitely try to get to the

Re: Difference between Legacy Facets and JSON Facets

They aren't doing the same thing... The first URL is doing a straight facet on the content field. The second URL is doing a facet on the content field and asking for an additional statistic for each bucket. -Yonik On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Zheng Lin Edwin Yeo

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.0 and custom FieldCahe implementation

on every request. Where in 5.x is the object actually cached? Will this be possible in 5.x? On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote: The FieldCache has become implementation rather than interface, so I don't think you're going to see plugins at that level (it's all

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.0 and custom FieldCahe implementation

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Tomás Fernández Löbbe tomasflo...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think there is a way to do this now. Maybe we should separate the logic of creating the SolrIndexSearcher to a factory. That should probably be extended down to where lucene creates searchers as well

Re: Lucene/Solr 5.0 and custom FieldCahe implementation

The FieldCache has become implementation rather than interface, so I don't think you're going to see plugins at that level (it's all package protected now). One could either subclass or re-implement UnInvertingReader though. -Yonik On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Jamie Johnson

Re: StrDocValues

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote: Right, when scoring any document that scores 0 is removed from the results Just to clarify, I think Jamie removed 0 scoring documents himself. Solr has never done this itself. Lucene used to a long time ago and

Re: StrDocValues

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote: I don't see it explicitly mentioned, but does the boost only get applied to the final documents/score that matched the provided query or is it called for each field that matched? I'm assuming only once per document that

Re: Search opening hours

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:02 PM, O. Klein kl...@octoweb.nl wrote: I'm trying to find the best way to search for stores that are open NOW. It's probably not the *best* way, but assuming it's currently 4:10pm, you could do +open:[* TO 1610] +close:[1610 TO *] And to account for days of the week

Re: Performance improvements

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 6:33 PM, naga sharathrayapati sharathrayap...@gmail.com wrote: In order to improve the query time of nested faceting query (json facet api), have used 'docValues' in the schema,optimized index and increased cache sizes(no evictions) I still cannot be bring the query

Re: caches with faceting

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Kiran Sai Veerubhotla sai.sq...@gmail.com wrote: i have used json facet api and noticed that its relying heavily on filter cache. Yes. The root domain (the set of documents that match the base query and filters) is cached in the filter cache. For sub-facets,

Re: Disable caching

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm...so I think I have things setup correctly, I have a custom QParserPlugin building a custom query that wraps the query built from the base parser and stores the user who is executing the query. I've added the

Re: Cache

the performance of the *system* with caching disabled, and that's not really a valid way to go about it. -Yonik On 18-Aug-2015, at 11:30 am, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM, naga sharathrayapati sharathrayap...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible to clear the cache

Re: Disable caching

...} OR q={!secure v=$qq}qq={!parent. ..} -Yonik Are there any examples that I could look at for this? It's not clear to me what to do in the qparser once I have the user auths though. Again thanks, this is really good stuff. On Aug 18, 2015 8:54 PM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote

Re: Disable caching

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 7:11 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, my use case is security. Basically I am executing queries with certain auths and when they are executed multiple times with differing auths I'm getting cached results. If it's just simple stuff like top N docs

Re: Disable caching

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote: when you say a security filter, are you asking if I can express my security constraint as a query? If that is the case then the answer is no. At this point I have a requirement to secure Terms (a nightmare I know). Heh -

Re: Disable caching

You can comment out (some) of the caches. There are some caches like field caches that are more at the lucene level and can't be disabled. Can I ask what you are trying to prevent from being cached and why? Different caches are for different things, so it would seem to be an odd usecase to

Re: Disable caching

not much... record the credentials in the wrapper and use in the hashCode / equals. -Yonik Again thanks for the idea, I think this could be a simple way to use the caches. On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Jamie Johnson

Re: Cache

On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 12:23 PM, naga sharathrayapati sharathrayap...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible to clear the cache through query? I need this for performance valuation. No, but you can prevent a query from being cached: q={!cache=false}my query What are you trying to test the

Re: Solr Caching (documentCache) not working

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Daniel Collins danwcoll...@gmail.com wrote: we had to turn off ALL the Solr caches (warming is useless at that kind of frequency Warming and caching are related, but different. Caching still normally makes sense without warming, and Solr is generally written

Re: SolrCloud Shard Order Hash Keys

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Sathiya N Sundararajan ausat...@gmail.com wrote: Folks: Question regarding SolrCloud Shard Number (Ex: shardx) associated hash ranges. We are in the process of identifying the best strategy to merge shards that belong to collections that are chronologically

Re: SOLR to pivot on date range query

The JSON Facet API can embed any type of facet within any other type: http://yonik.com/json-facet-api/ json.facet={ dates : { type : range, field : entryDate, start : 2001-..., // use full solr date format end : 2015..., gap : +1MONTH, facet : { type:terms,

Re: docValues

Interesting... what type of field was this? (string or numeric? single or multi-valued?) Without docValues, the first request would be slow (due to building the in-memory field cache entry), but after that it should be fast. -Yonik On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Nagasharath

Re: SOLR Exception with SOLR Cloud 5.1 setup on Linux

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Shawn Heisey apa...@elyograg.org wrote: To get out of the hole you're in now, either build a new collection with the actual shard count that you want so it's correctly set up, or edit the clusterstate in zookeeper to change the hash range (change 8000 to

Re: serious JSON Facet bug

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Nagasharath sharathrayap...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a jira logged for this issue? * SOLR-7781: JSON Facet API: Terms facet on string/text fields with sub-facets caused a bug that resulted in filter cache lookup misses as well as the filter cache exceeding

Re: serious JSON Facet bug

if it's current size is larger than the configured maximum. -Yonik On Jul 16, 2015, at 1:43 PM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote: To anyone using the JSON Facet API in released Solr versions: I discovered a serious memory leak while doing performance benchmarks (see http://yonik.com

Re: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Too many values for UnInvertedField faceting on field content

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Ali Nazemian alinazem...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Erick, I found another thing, I did check the number of unique terms for this field using schema browser, It reported 1683404 number of terms! Does it exceed the maximum number of unique terms for fcs facet method?

serious JSON Facet bug

To anyone using the JSON Facet API in released Solr versions: I discovered a serious memory leak while doing performance benchmarks (see http://yonik.com/facet_performance/ for some of the early results). Assuming you're in the evaluation / development phase of your project, I'd recommend using a

Re: FieldCache error for multivalued fields in json facets.

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Iana Bondarska yana2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I'm using json query api for solr 5.2. When query for metrics for multivalued fields, I get error: can not use FieldCache on multivalued field: sales. I've found in solr wiki that to avoid using fieldcache I should

Re: Too many Soft commits and opening searchers realtime

A realtime searcher is necessary for internal bookkeeping / uses if a normal searcher isn't opened on a commit. This searcher doesn't have caches and hence doesn't carry the weight that a normal searcher would. It's also invisible to clients (it doesn't change the view of the index for normal

Re: Difference in WordDelimiterFilter behavior between 4.7.2 and 4.9.1

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Shawn Heisey apa...@elyograg.org wrote: After the fix (with luceneMatchVersion at 4.9), both aaa and bbb end up at position 2. Yikes, that's definitely wrong. -Yonik

Re: Tlog replay

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Summer Shire shiresum...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Alessandro ! Any idea on why I couldn't curl the solr core and pass the flag param ? These flags are for internal use only. Solr sets them, the client doesn't. -Yonik

Re: Distributed queries hang in a non-SolrCloud environment, Solr 4.10.4

Are you running with the stock Jetty-based server or did you configure your own servlet container / config? Any plugins / extensions to Solr? It would be odd for FastLRUCache to be involved - I don't think that code has changed between 4.8.1 and 4.10.4 -Yonik On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:36 PM,

Re: fq versus q

Why is cache=false set for the filter? Grouping uses a 2 pass algorithm by default, so that means that the filter will need to be generated twice (I think) if caching is turned off. Also, when you try to use the fq version, what are you using for the main query? -Yonik On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at

Re: Multivalued fields order of storing is guaranteed ?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Alok Bhandari alokomprakashbhand...@gmail.com wrote: Is it guaranteed that stored multivalued fields maintain order of insertion. Yes. -Yonik

Re: Parent/Child (Nested Document) Faceting

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Alessandro Benedetti benedetti.ale...@gmail.com wrote: So why in both cases we express the parent type ? ( Note that regardless of which direction we are mapping (parents to children or children to parents) we provide a query that defines the complete set of

Parent/Child (Nested Document) Faceting

Hey Folks, I'd love some feedback on the interface for nested document faceting (or rather switching facet domains to/from parent/child). See the bottom of this blog: http://yonik.com/solr-nested-objects/ Issue #1: How to specify that one should change domains before faceting? I originally

Re: Division with Stats Component when Grouping in Solr

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:30 AM, kingofhypocrites kingofhypocri...@gmail.com wrote: I am migrating a database from SQL Server to Cassandra. Currently I have a setup as follows: - Log data in Cassandra - Summarize data in Spark and put into Cassandra summary tables - Query data in Solr

Lucene/Solr Revolution 2015 Voting

Hey Folks, If you're interested in going to Lucene/Solr Revolution this year in Austin, please vote for the sessions you would like to see! https://lucenerevolution.uservoice.com/ -Yonik

Re: Multivalued OR query with equal score/rankings when any one value matches

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Troy Collinsworth troycollinswo...@gmail.com wrote: While trying to query a multivalued String field for multiple values, when any one value matches the score is higher for the lower value and lower for the higher. I swapped the value order and it had no affect

Re: Confused about whether Real-time Gets must be sent to leader?

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Timothy Potter thelabd...@gmail.com wrote: I'm seeing that RTG requests get routed to any active replica of the shard hosting the doc requested by /get ... I was thinking only the leader should handle that request since there's a brief window of time where the

Re: please confirm: pseudo join queries can only be performed on fields of exactly the same type

They should not have to be *exactly* the same type... just compatible types such that the indexed tokens match. When you used the keywordTokenizer, was there other analysis such as lowercasing going on? -Yonik On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Matteo Grolla matteo.gro...@gmail.com wrote: Hi,

Re: Solr 5.1 json facets: buckets are empty for TrieIntField

That was previously found and fixed - can you try a recent nightly build? https://builds.apache.org/job/Solr-Artifacts-5.x/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/solr/package/ -Yonik On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:04 AM, Andrii Berezhynskyi andrii.berezhyns...@home24.de wrote: I have a strange issue of facet

Re: Real-Time get and Dynamic Fields: possible bug.

Are the _facet fields the target of a copyField in the schema? Realtime get either gets the values from the transaction log (and if you didn't send it the values, they won't be there) or gets them from the index to try and reconstruct what was sent in. It's generally not recommended to have

Re: Real-Time get and Dynamic Fields: possible bug.

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Luis Cappa Banda luisca...@gmail.com wrote: If you don' t mark as stored a field indexed and 'facetable', I was expecting to not be able to return their values, so faceting has no sense. Faceting does not use or retrieve stored field values. The labels

Re: Real-Time get and Dynamic Fields: possible bug.

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Luis Cappa Banda luisca...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Yonik, Yes, they are the target from copyFields in the schema.xml. This *_target fields are suposed to be used in some specific searchable (thus, tokenized) fields that in the future are candidates to be faceted

Re: JSON Facet Analytics API in Solr 5.1

I really appreciate your help. Frank http://localhost:8983/solr/demo/query?q=applejson.facet=%7Bx:%27avg%28price%29%27%7D On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Frank li fudon...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Yonik, I am reading

Re: JSON Facet Analytics API in Solr 5.1

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Frank li fudon...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Yonik, I am reading your blog. It is helpful. One question for you, for following example, curl http://localhost:8983/solr/query -d 'q=*:*rows=0 json.facet={ categories:{ type : terms, field : cat,

Re: A defect in Schema API with Add a New Copy Field Rule?

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Steve Rowe sar...@gmail.com wrote: It’s by design that you can copyField the same source/dest multiple times - according to Yonik (not sure where this was discussed), this capability has been used in the past to effectively boost terms in the source field.

Re: blocked in org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.getSearcher(...) ?

On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Clemens Wyss DEV clemens...@mysign.ch wrote: No load by/on any other thread. Can we get a full thread dump (of all the threads) during this time? This line: org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.getSearcher(boolean, boolean, java.util.concurrent.Future[], boolean) line:

Re: blocked in org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.getSearcher(...) ?

What are the other threads doing during this time? -Yonik On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Clemens Wyss DEV clemens...@mysign.ch wrote: Context: Solr 5.1, EmbeddedSolrServer(-mode) I have a rather big index/core (1G). I was able to initially index this core and could then search within it.

Re: AW: blocked in org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore.getSearcher(...) ?

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6679 If you don't use the suggest component, the easiest fix is to comment it out. -Yonik On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Clemens Wyss DEV clemens...@mysign.ch wrote: I guess it's the searcherExecutor-7-thread-1 (30) which seems to be loading

Re: Bad contentType for search handler :text/xml; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:00 AM, didier deshommes dfdes...@gmail.com wrote: curl http://localhost:8983/solr/gettingstarted/select?wt=jsonindent=trueq=foundation; -H Content-type:application/json You're telling Solr the body encoding is JSON, but then you don't send any body. We could catch

Re: CDATA response is coming with lt: instead of

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:46 AM, mesenthil1 senthilkumar.arumu...@viacomcontractor.com wrote: We are using DIH for indexing XML files. As part of the xml we have xml enclosed with CDATA. It is getting indexed but in response the CDATA content is coming as decoded terms instead of symbols. Your

Re: JSON Facet Analytics API in Solr 5.1

={type:terms, field:author, limit:5} (For anyone who doesn't know what smart merging is, see http://yonik.com/solr-json-request-api/ ) -Yonik On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you everyone for the feedback! I've implemented and committed the flatter

Re: JSON Facet Analytics API in Solr 5.1

the type in the args: top_authors : { type : terms, field : author, limit : 5 } It's a flatter structure... probably better in some ways, but worse in other ways. Thoughts / preferences? -Yonik On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote: Folks, there's a new JSON

Re: 5.1 'unique' facet function / calcDistinct

Thanks for the feedback Levan! Could you open a JIRA issue for unique() on numeric/date fields? We don't yet have explicit numeric support for unique() and I think some changes in Lucene 5 broke treating these fields as strings (i.e. the ability to retrieve ords). -Yonik On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at

Re: Using synonyms API

I just tried this quickly on trunk and it still works. /opt/code/lusolr_trunk$ curl http://localhost:8983/solr/techproducts/schema/analysis/synonyms/english { responseHeader:{ status:0, QTime:234}, synonymMappings:{ initArgs:{ ignoreCase:true, format:solr},

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >