Folks, there's a new JSON Facet API in the just released Solr 5.1
(actually, a new facet module under the covers too).
It's marked as experimental so we have time to change the API based on
your feedback. So let us know what you like, what you would change,
what's missing, or any other ideas you
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 6:36 AM, yriveiro yago.rive...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have an external application that use the output of a facet to join other
dataset using the keys of the facet result.
The facet query use index sort but in some point, my application crash
because the order of the
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Yago Riveiro yago.rive...@gmail.com wrote:
Where can I found the source code used in index sorting? I need to ensure
that the external data has the same sorting that the facet result.
If you step over the indexed terms of a field you get them in sorted
order
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Ryan Josal rjo...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorting the result set or the facets? For the facets there is
facet.sort=index (lexicographically) and facet.sort=count. So maybe you
are asking if you can sort by index, but reversed? I don't think this is
possible, and
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Mark E. Haase meha...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong. The configSet parameter doesn't work at all in
my set up, so you might be right... I'm just wondering where that's
documented.
Trying on current trunk, I got it to work:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
arafa...@gmail.com wrote:
I looked at SOLR-7290, but I think the discussion should stay on the
mailing list for at least one more iteration.
My understanding that the reason copyField exists is so that a search
actually worked out of the
I took a quick look at the stock schemaless configs... unfortunately
they contain a performance trap.
There's a copyField by default that copies *all* fields to a catch-all
field called _text.
IMO, that's not a great default. Double the index size (well, the
index portion of it at least... not
The document cache is not really going to be taking up time here.
How many concurrent requests (threads) are you testing with here?
One thing I've seen over the years is a false sense of what is taking
up time when benchmarks with a lot of threads are used. The reason is
that when there are a
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Dominique Bejean
dominique.bej...@eolya.fr wrote:
Thank you for the response
This is something Heliosearch can do. Ionic Seeley, created a JIRA ticket
to back port this feature to Solr 5.
Oh, I'm charged now, am I? ;-)
I'ts been committed, and will be in
Your basic assumptions about the underlying mechanisms are incorrect.
The size of the index has nothing to do with the transaction logs...
and transaction logs are never written to index except in recovery.
You would see the same index size behavior w/o transaction logs, and
it has to do with some
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Erick Erickson
erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
1 Well, probably not. Hate to be confusing here, but if your ramBufferSizeMB
setting is exceeded, then internal buffers will be flushed to the
currently open segment in the
index directory.
It's even more
at the bottom.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uZ2qgOaKx1ZxJ_NKwj2zIAYFQ9fp8OrEPI5hqadcPeY/
-Yonik
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote:
As many of you know, I've been doing some work in the experimental
heliosearch fork of Solr over the past year. I think it's
As many of you know, I've been doing some work in the experimental
heliosearch fork of Solr over the past year. I think it's time to
bring some more of those changes back.
So here's a poll: Which Heliosearch features do you think should be
brought back to Apache Solr?
http://bit.ly/1E7wi1Q
://sematext.com/
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote:
As many of you know, I've been doing some work in the experimental
heliosearch fork of Solr over the past year. I think it's time to
bring some more of those changes back.
So here's a poll: Which
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Arun Rangarajan
arunrangara...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
This query
q=name:ofrows=0
gives no results as expected.
However, this query:
q=name:of AND all_class_ids:(371)rows=0
gives results and is equal to the same number of results as
Hmmm, that's interesting...
It looks like a container (jetty/tomcat or whatever) configuration
limit somewhere. I'd only expect this error from Solr when trying to
send something really large though - notice upload in the error. Is
this error message really from Solr or another piece of your
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:29 AM, CKReddy Bhimavarapu
chaitu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Using CursorMark we over come the Deep paging so far so good. As far
as I understand cursormark unique for each and every query depending on
sort values other than unique id and also depends up on number
It's worth noting that those messages alone don't necessarily signify
a problem with the system (and it wouldn't be called split brain).
The async nature of updates (and thread scheduling) along with
stop-the-world GC pauses that can change leadership, cause these
little windows of inconsistencies
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Erick Erickson
erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know the complete algorithm, but if the number of docs that
satisfy the fq is small enough,
then just the internal Lucene doc IDs are stored rather than a bitset.
If smaller than maxDoc/64 ids are
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, then I don't think it's a Solr problem. I think 5 of your Tomcats are
configured in such a way that they consider ^ to be an illegal character.
Hmmm, the stack trace in SOLR-5971 shows a different user (who gets
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
arafa...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 11:40, Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com wrote:
So to Solr (server side), it looks like a single update request
(assuming 1 thread) with a batch of multiple documents... but it was
never
[mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik Seeley
Sent: 08 December 2014 17:58
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to stop Solr tokenising search terms with spaces
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Erik Hatcher erik.hatc...@gmail.com wrote:
debug output tells a lot. Looks like
...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik Seeley
Sent: 07 December 2014 20:49
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How to stop Solr tokenising search terms with spaces
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Dinesh Babu dinesh.b...@pb.com wrote:
Thanks Yonik. This does not seem to work for me. This is wgat I
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Erik Hatcher erik.hatc...@gmail.com wrote:
debug output tells a lot. Looks like in the last two examples that the
second part (Viewpoint*) is NOT parsed with the complex phrase parser - the
whitespace thwarts it.
Actually, it looks like it is, but you're not
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Dinesh Babu dinesh.b...@pb.com wrote:
Thanks Yonik. This does not seem to work for me. This is wgat I did
1) q=displayName:rvn* brings me two records (a) RVN Viewpoint Users and (b)
RVN Project Admins
2) {!complexphrase}RVN* -- Unknown query type
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Dinesh Babu dinesh.b...@pb.com wrote:
Just curious, why solr does not provide a simple mechanism to do a phrase
search ?
Simple phrase queries:
q= field1:Hanks Major
Phrase queries with wildcards / partial matches are a different
story... they are complex:
http://heliosearch.org/download
Heliosearch v0.09 Features:
o Heliosearch v0.09 is based on (and contains all features of)
Lucene/Solr 4.10.2 + most of 4.10.3
o Distributed search support for the new faceted search module / JSON
Facet API: http://heliosearch.org/json-facet-api/
o Automatic
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
arafa...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like one of these:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1379934/large-numbers-erroneously-rounded-in-javascript
Yeah, that's what Brendan pointed to earlier in this thread.
In the UI code, we just seem to be
It would have been helpful if you would have pointed out exactly what
you think the problem is.
I still don't see an issue, since it doesn't look like any
encapsulation has been broken.
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Wed, Nov
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Lee Carroll
lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com wrote:
The applications using the data may write solr data to the dom. (I doubt
they do but they could now or in the future. They have an expectation of
trusting the data back from solr).
As a straight forward attack
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Lee Carroll
lee.a.carr...@googlemail.com wrote:
Just out of interest, what is the use-case for a pseudo-field whose value
is a repeat of the field name?
Not having to specify a field name for the function query:
fl=add(x,y)
somes back as (for example)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
This is very weird, someone want to check this out to insure that I'm
not hallucinating?
I just tried the following in Heliosearch, since I had it open (based
on 4.10.x):
@Test
public void testWeird() throws
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmmm, this seems to be browser related
because if I use curl or Safari, the return and display
are fine.
i.e.
curl http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/query?q=*:*
displays:
eoe_tl:20140716126615472,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brendan Humphreys bren...@canva.com wrote:
I'd wager this is a loss of precision caused by Javascript rounding in the
admin client. More details here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1379934/large-numbers-erroneously-rounded-in-javascript
Ah, indeed - I was
:02, Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brendan Humphreys bren...@canva.com wrote:
I'd wager this is a loss of precision caused by Javascript rounding in the
admin client. More details here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1379934/large-numbers
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Priya Rodrigues roddied...@gmail.com wrote:
public void setContext( TransformContext context ) {
try {
IndexReader reader = qparser.getReq().getSearcher().getIndexReader();
-Refcount incremented
You can get a searcher from the request as many times
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Philip Durbin
philip_dur...@harvard.edu wrote:
Solr JOINs are a way to enforce simple document security, as explained
by Yonik Seeley at
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/document-level-security-filter-solution-for-Solr-tp4126992p4126994.html
I'm trying
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Philip Durbin
philip_dur...@harvard.edu wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Philip Durbin
philip_dur...@harvard.edu wrote:
Solr JOINs are a way to enforce simple document security
On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Mohsin Beg Beg mohsin@oracle.com wrote:
Wiki says fq={!cache=false}*:* is ok, no?
That's for the filtering... not for the faceting.
then how to skip filterCache for facet.method=enum ?
Specify a high minDF (the min docfreq or number of documents that
need
Try commenting out the suggester component handler in solrconfig.xml:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6679
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Mohsen Saboorian mohs...@gmail.com wrote:
I
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Matteo Grolla matteo.gro...@gmail.com wrote:
HI,
can anybody give me a confirm?
If I add multiple document with the same id but differing on other fields and
then issue a commit (no commits before this) the last added document gets
indexed, right?
Can you tell from the logs what Solr is doing during that time?
Do you have any warming queries configured?
Also see this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6679
(comment out suggester related stuff if you aren't using it)
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet
One possible cause of a slow startup with the default configs:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-6679
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Michal Krajňanský
michal.krajnan...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 27.10.2014 um 17:25 schrieb Yonik Seeley:
http://heliosearch.org/download
Heliosearch v0.08 Features:
o Heliosearch v0.08 is based on (and contains all features of)
Lucene/Solr 4.10.2
o Streaming Aggregations over search results API:
http://heliosearch.org/streaming-aggregation
http://heliosearch.org/download
Heliosearch v0.08 Features:
o Heliosearch v0.08 is based on (and contains all features of)
Lucene/Solr 4.10.2
o Streaming Aggregations over search results API:
http://heliosearch.org/streaming-aggregation-for-solrcloud/
o Optimized request logging, and
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Michael Sokolov
msoko...@safaribooksonline.com wrote:
3.16e-11.0 looks fishy to me
Indeed... looks like it should be 3.16e-11
Standard scientific notation shouldn't have decimal points in the
exponent. Not sure if that causes Java problems or not though...
A terms query will be better than a boolean query here (assuming you
don't care about scoring those terms):
http://heliosearch.org/solr-terms-query/
But you need a recent version of Solr or Heliosearch.
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 12:22 AM, William Bell billnb...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to call:
http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/query?defType=myqpyy=electronicsq=payloads:$yy
How do I pass $yy to the parser and have it use electronics instead
of the literal $yy?
Solr only does parameter
Hmmm, I imagine this is due to the lucene back compat bugs that were
in 4.10, and the fact that the last release of heliosearch was
branched off of the 4x branch.
I just tried moving an index back and forth between my local
heliosearch copy and solr 4.10.1 and things worked fine.
Here's the
It's your full-import every 5 minutes.
A queryResultCache will be invalidated by changes to the index (i.e. a
commit) and the size will drop back to 0.
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Lee Chunki
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Peter Keegan peterlkee...@gmail.com wrote:
Say I have a boolean field named 'hidden', and less than 1% of the
documents in the index have hidden=true.
Do both these filter queries use the same docset cache size? :
fq=hidden:false
fq=!hidden:true
Nope...
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Shawn Heisey apa...@elyograg.org wrote:
On 10/3/2014 1:57 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Peter Keegan peterlkee...@gmail.com wrote:
Say I have a boolean field named 'hidden', and less than 1% of the
documents in the index have hidden
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Peter Keegan peterlkee...@gmail.com wrote:
it will be cached as hidden:true and then inverted
Inverted at query time, so for best query performance use fq=hidden:false,
right?
Yep.
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, White, Bill bwh...@ptfs.com wrote:
Hello,
I've attempted to figure this out from reading the documentation but
without much luck. I looked for a comprehensive query syntax specification
(e.g., with BNF and a list of operator semantics) but I'm unable to find
or
green, but do NOT match ANY other color. I can probably drop the
requirement related to having no color.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 2:52 PM, White, Bill bwh...@ptfs.com wrote:
Hello,
I've attempted to figure this out
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 3:46 PM, White, Bill bwh...@ptfs.com wrote:
Hmm, that won't work since color is free-form.
Is there a way to invoke (via fq) a user-defined function (hopefully
defined as part of the fq syntax, but alternatively, written in Java) and
have it applied to the resultset?
Heh... very clever, Mikhail!
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Mikhail Khludnev
mkhlud...@griddynamics.com wrote:
indeed!
the exclusive range {green TO red} matches to the lemon yellow
hence, the
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Bruce Johnson br...@fullstory.com wrote:
Is it reliably true that once a soft commit request returns,
any subsequent queries will hit a new (and autowarmed) searcher?
Yes.
The default for commit and softCommit commands is waitSearcher=true,
which will not return
http://heliosearch.org/download
Heliosearch v0.07 Features
o Heliosearch v0.07 is based on (and contains all features of)
Lucene/Solr 4.10.0
o An optimized Terms Query with native code performance
enhancements for efficiently matching multiple terms in a field.
Solr 4.10 has added a {!terms} query that should speed up these cases.
Benchmarks here:
http://heliosearch.org/solr-terms-query/
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 2:57 PM, SolrUser1543 osta...@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:35 AM, dhimant dhimant84.jays...@gmail.com wrote:
I want to add a new stat
function (UniqueUsers(fieldName) like add/avg function already available in
Solr) to find the unique across searched Solr records.
Heliosearch (a solr fork) has this:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:27 AM, dhimant dhimant84.jays...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yonik,
Thanks for the reply.
But i want a unique function on my binary column. This column contains
binary representation of java hashset.
Ah, got it... hopefully it's your own binary format and not Java
You can't do this with stock solr, but a generic templating ability is
now in heliosearch (a fork of solr):
http://heliosearch.org/solr-query-parameter-substitution/
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 5:46 AM,
It's configurable:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1123
It has been text/plain since v1.0 by default (so it will render in
browsers) - perhaps you just never noticed?
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:43 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
arafa...@gmail.com wrote:
That resource is rather superficial. I wouldn't make big decision based on it.
Agree. It's also somewhat biased given the environment in which it
grew. ES advocates were all over stuff like that, but Solr advocates
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Joel Cohen jco...@grubhub.com wrote:
The only thing so far that I see as a hurdle here is the data set size vs.
heap size. If the index grows too large, then we have to increase the heap
size, which could lead to longer GC times. Servers could pop in and out of
The join qparser has no fq parameter, so that is ignored.
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:12 PM, heaven aheave...@gmail.com wrote:
_query_:{!join from=profile_ids_im to=id_i v=$qTweet107001860
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Nico Kaiser n...@kaiser.me wrote:
After the upgrade to Solr 4.9 (from 3.6) this seems not to be possible
anymore:
Stats can only facet on single-valued fields, not: instrumentIds
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3642
It looks like perhaps it never
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Nico Kaiser n...@kaiser.me wrote:
Yonik, thanks for your reply! I also found
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1782 which also sees to deal with
this, but I did not find out wether there is a workaround.
For our use case the previous behaviour was
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:08 AM, David Flower dflo...@amplience.com wrote:
Is it possible to create a facet within another facet in a single query
For simple field facets, there's pivot faceting.
For more complex nested facets, there are sub-facets in heliosearch (a
solr fork):
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Hayden Muhl haydenm...@gmail.com wrote:
I was doing some performance testing on facet queries and I noticed
something odd. Most queries tended to be under 500 ms, but every so often
the query time jumped to something like 5000 ms.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Nathan Neulinger nn...@neulinger.org wrote:
[{id:4b2c4d09-31e2-4fe2-b767-3868efbdcda1,channel: {add:
preet},channel: {add: adam}}]
Look at the JSON... It's trying to add two channel array elements...
Should have been:
[...]
From what I'm reading on JSON -
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Kuehn, Dennis
dennis.ku...@brands4friends.de wrote:
I'd like to sort on a TrieDateField which currently has a precisionStep value
of 6.
From what I got so far, the precisionStep value only affects range query
performance and index size.
However, the
wants to help out, the github issue is here:
https://github.com/Heliosearch/heliosearch/issues/13
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - native code faceting, facet functions,
sub-facets, off-heap data
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 3:46 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com
wrote:
FYI, for those
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Yago Riveiro yago.rive...@gmail.com wrote:
Yonik,
This native code uses in any way the docValues?
Nope... not yet. It is something I think we should look into in the
future though.
In the past I was forced to indexed a big portion of my data with docValues
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Floyd Wu floyd...@gmail.com wrote:
Will these awesome features being implemented in Solr soon
2014/6/20 下午10:43 於 Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com 寫道：
Given the current makeup of the joint Lucene/Solr PMC, it's unclear.
I'm not worrying about that for now
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Floyd Wu floyd...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yonik, i dont' understand the relationship between solr and heliosearch
since you were committer of solr?
Heliosearch is a Solr fork that will hopefully find it's way back to
the ASF in the future.
Here's the original
FYI, for those who want to try out the new native code faceting, this
is the first release containing it (for single valued string fields
only as of yet).
http://heliosearch.org/download/
Heliosearch v0.06
Features:
o Heliosearch v0.06 is based on (and contains all features of)
Lucene/Solr
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Next major feature: Native Code Optimizations.
In addition to moving more large data structures off-heap(like
UnInvertedField?), I am planning to implement native code
optimizations for certain hotspots. Native code
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Brett Hoerner br...@bretthoerner.com wrote:
If I run a query like this,
fq=text:lol
fq=created_at_tdid:[1400544000 TO 1400630400]
It takes about 6 seconds. Following queries take only 50ms or less, as
expected because my fqs are cached.
However, if I change
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com wrote:
So try:
q=*:*
fq=created_at_tdid:[1400544000 TO 1400630400]
vs
So try:
q=*:*
fq={!cache=false}created_at_tdid:[1400544000 TO 1400630400]
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - facet functions, subfacets, off-heap
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Brett Hoerner br...@bretthoerner.com wrote:
Yonik, I'm familiar with your blog posts -- and thanks very much for them.
:) Though I'm not sure what you're trying to show me with the q=*:* part? I
was of course using q=*:* in my queries, but I assume you mean to
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 8:47 AM, mizayah miza...@gmail.com wrote:
i show you my full query
it's rly simple one
q=*:* and fq=class_name:CdnFile
debug q shows that process of q takes so long.
single filter is critical here.
400ms is too long... something is strange.
One possibility is that
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Lokn nlokesh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the reply.
I am using edismax for the query parsing. Still it's not working.
Instead of using local params, if I use the field directly then regex is
working fine.
It's not for me...
This does not work:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:38 AM, Lokn nlokesh...@gmail.com wrote:
With solr local params, the regex is not working.
My sample query: q ={!qf=$myfield_qf}/[a-d]ad/, where I have myfield_qf
defined in the solrconfig.xml.
add debugQuery=true to the request to see what query is actually produced.
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 9:21 PM, 张月祥 zhan...@calis.edu.cn wrote:
Thanks a lot.
There are only 256 byte arrays to hold all of the ord data, and the
pointers into those arrays are only 24 bits long. That gets you back
to 32 bits, or 4GB of ord data max. It's practically less since you
only
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Jack Krupansky
j...@basetechnology.com wrote:
Hmmm... that doesn't sound like what I would have expected - I would have
thought that Solr would throw an exception on the user field, rather than
simply treat it as a text keyword.
No, I believe that's working as
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:50 PM, 张月祥 zhan...@calis.edu.cn wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I'll try it.
We're still interested in the real limitation about Too many values for
UnInvertedField faceting on field xxx .
Could anybody tell us some internals about Too many values for
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Toke Eskildsen t...@statsbiblioteket.dk
wrote:
Per Steffensen [st...@designware.dk] wrote:
* It IS more efficient to just use the index for the
no_dlng_doc_ind_sto-part of the request to get doc-ids that match that
part and then fetch timestamp-doc-values for
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Achim Domma do...@procoders.net wrote:
- I found several times code snippets like if (collector instanceof
DelegatingCollector) { ((DelegatingCollector)collector).finish() } . Such
code is considered bad practice in every OO language I know. Do I miss
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:29 AM, danny teichthal dannyt...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder about performance difference of 2 indexing options: 1- multivalued
field 2- separate fields
The case is as follows: Each document has 100 “properties”: prop1..prop100.
The values are strings and there is no
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Tommaso Teofili
tommaso.teof...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically I need the ability to keep running searches against a specified
commit point / index reader / state of the Lucene / Solr index.
I think searcher leases would fit the bill here?
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com wrote:
I think searcher leases would fit the bill here?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2809
Not yet implemented though...
FYI, I just put up a simple LeaseManager implementation on that issue.
-Yonik
http
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jean-Sebastien Vachon
jean-sebastien.vac...@wantedanalytics.com wrote:
I spent some time today playing around with subfacets and facets functions
now available in helios search 0.05 and I have some concerns... They look
very promising .
Thanks, glad for the
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Romain romain@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to plot a non date field by time in order to draw an histogram
showing its evolution during the week.
For example, if I have a tweet index:
Tweet:
date
retweetCount
3 tweets indexed:
Tweet | Date |
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Matteo Grolla matteo.gro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm having troubles with the function query
query(subquery, default)
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#query
running this
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Romain Rigaux rom...@cloudera.com wrote:
This looks nice!
The only missing piece for more interactivity would be to be able to map
multiple field values into the same bucket.
e.g.
http://localhost:8983/solr/query?
q=*:*
facet=true
For those Tomcat fans out there, we've released HDS 4.8.0_01,
based on Solr 4.8.0 of course. HDS is pretty much just Apache Solr,
with the addition of a Tomcat based server.
Download: http://heliosearch.com/heliosearch-distribution-for-solr/
HDS details:
- includes a pre-configured (threads,
How many documents? That can be just as important (often more
important) than total index size.
Some other details, like the types of requests, would be helpful (i.e.
what the index will be used for... the latency requirements of
requests, if you will be faceting, etc).
-Yonik
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Mikhail Khludnev
mkhlud...@griddynamics.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:08 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com wrote:
Try adding a space before the first term, so the
default lucene query parser will be used:
Yonik, I'm curious, whether it a feature
301 - 400 of 2724 matches
Mail list logo
