Re: Changing definition of id field

uniqeKey from my "id" to "id_str". May this work? Assuming that all ids are unique? On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote: > On 3/9/2017 4:20 AM, danny teichthal wrote: > > I have an "id" field that is de

Changing definition of id field

Hi, I have an "id" field that is defined on schema.xml with type long. For some use cases the id that is indexed exceeds Max long limitation. I thought about solving it by changing the id to type string. For my surprise, by only changing the definition on schema.xml and restarting Solr, I was

Re: Solr 6.1.0, zookeeper 3.4.8, Solrj and SolrCloud

Hi, Not sure if it is related, but could be - I see that you do this = CloudSolrClient solrClient = new CloudSolrClient.Builder().withZkHost(zkHosts).build(); Are you creating a new client on each update? If yes, pay attention that the Solr Client should be a singleton. Regarding session timeout,

Re: SOLR-7036 - a new Faster method for facet grouping

on JSON API. Please take a look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7036 Comments and votes are welcome. On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:31 AM, danny teichthal <dannyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > SOLR-7036 introduced a new faster method for group.facet, which uses >

Re: Solr DeleteByQuery vs DeleteById

Hi Bharath, I'm no expert, but we had some major problems because of deleteByQuery ( in short DBQ). We ended up replacing all of our DBQ to delete by ids. My suggestion is that if you don't realy need it - don't use it. Especially in your case, since you already know the population of ids, it is

SOLR-7036 - Faster method for group.facet - new patch for trunk

Hi, SOLR-7036 introduced a new faster method for group.facet, which uses UnInvertedField. It was patched for version 4.x. Over the last week, my colleague uploaded a new patch that work against the trunk. We would really appreciate if anyone could take a look at it and give us some feedback about

Re: SOLR war for SOLR 6

If you are running on tomcat you will probably have a deployment problem. On version 5.2.1 it worked fine for me, I manually packaged solr.war on build time. But, when trying to upgrade to Solr 5.5.1, I had problems with incompatible servlet-api of Solr's jetty version and my tomcat servlert-api.

Re: Questions on SolrCloud core state, when will Solr recover a "DOWN" core to "ACTIVE" core.

Hi Li, If you could supply some more info from your logs would help. We also had some similar issue. There were some bugs related to SolrCloud that were solved on solr 4.10.4 and further on solr 5.x. I would suggest you compare your logs with defects on 4.10.4 release notes to see if they are the

Re: SolrCloud - Strategy for recovering cluster states

, I think it should be local disk for > non-SolrCloud, and ZK for SolrCloud. > > > > > > On 3/2/16, 12:13 AM, "danny teichthal" <dannyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Thanks Jeff, > >I understand your philosophy and it sounds correct. > >Since we had

Re: SolrCloud - Strategy for recovering cluster states

ere’s a link, although I clearly > haven’t touched it lately. Feel free to ask if you have issues: > https://github.com/randomstatistic/git_zk_monitor > > > > > On 3/1/16, 12:09 PM, "danny teichthal" <dannyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Hi, > >Just summariz

Re: SolrCloud - Strategy for recovering cluster states

discovery? I would like to be able to specify collection.configName in the core.properties and when starting server, the collection will be created and linked to the config name specified. On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:01 PM, danny teichthal <dannyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > >

SolrCloud - Strategy for recovering cluster states

Hi, I would like to describe a process we use for overcoming problems in cluster state when we have networking issues. Would appreciate if anyone can answer about what are the flaws on this solution and what is the best practice for recovery in case of network problems involving zookeeper. I'm

Re: Solr node 'Gone' status

>From my short experience, it indicates that the particular node lost connection with zookeeper. Like Binoy said, It may be because the process/host is down, but also could be a result of a network problem. On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Binoy Dalal wrote: > In my

Re: Cluster down for long time after zookeeper disconnection

for action to be taken is the fallback. Best, Erick On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:34 PM, danny teichthal dannyt...@gmail.com wrote: Erick, I assume you are referring to zkClientTimeout, it is set to 30 seconds. I also see these messages on Solr side: Client session timed out, have not heard

Cluster down for long time after zookeeper disconnection

Hi, We are using Solr cloud with solr 4.10.4. On the passed week we encountered a problem where all of our servers disconnected from zookeeper cluster. This might be ok, the problem is that after reconnecting to zookeeper it looks like for every collection both replicas do not have a leader and

Re: Cluster down for long time after zookeeper disconnection

, but would at least give a confirmation and maybe workaround on what you are facing. Regards, Alex. Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs and even a newsletter: http://www.solr-start.com/ On 10 August 2015 at 11:37, danny teichthal dannyt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, We are using

Re: Cluster down for long time after zookeeper disconnection

. Of course if your ZK was down for minutest this wouldn't help. Best, Erick On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 1:06 PM, danny teichthal dannyt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Alexander , Thanks for your reply, I looked at the release notes. There is one bug fix - SOLR-7503 https://issues.apache.org/jira

SolrCloud updates are slow on replica (DBQ?)

Hi, We are experiencing some intermittent slowness on updates for one of our collections. We see user operations hanging on updates to SOLR via SolrJ client. Every time in the period of the slowness we see something like this in the log of the replica: [org.apache.solr.update.UpdateHandler]

Re: SolrCloud updates are slow on replica (DBQ?)

: http://lucidworks.com/blog/indexing-performance-solr-5-2-now-twice-fast/ Best, Erick On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:14 AM, danny teichthal dannyt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, We are experiencing some intermittent slowness on updates for one of our collections. We see user operations hanging

Re: CopyField exclude patterns

, Alex. Sign up for my Solr resources newsletter at http://www.solr-start.com/ On 2 February 2015 at 02:53, danny teichthal dannyt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Is there a way to make some patterns to be excluded on the source of a copyField? We are using globs to copy all our text

CopyField exclude patterns

Hi, Is there a way to make some patterns to be excluded on the source of a copyField? We are using globs to copy all our text fields to some target field. It looks something like this: copyField source=prefix_* dest=destination / I would like a subset of the fields starting with prefix_ to be

Re: Different update handlers for auto commit configuration

Thanks for the clarification, I indeed mixed it with UpdateRequestHandler. On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Chris Hostetter hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote: : I thought that the auto commit is per update handler because they are : configured within the update handler tag. updateHandler is

Re: Different update handlers for auto commit configuration

rate you probably won't get much benefit out of the top-level caches, and you'll be warming an awful lot. FWIW, Erick On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 12:32 PM, danny teichthal dannyt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On our system we currently initiate a soft commit to SOLR after each business transaction

Different update handlers for auto commit configuration

Hi, On our system we currently initiate a soft commit to SOLR after each business transaction that initiate an update. Hard commits are automatic each 2 minutes. We want to limit the explicit commit and move to autoSoftCommit. Because of business restrictions: Online request should be available

Solr performance: multiValued filed vs separate fields

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 relation between different properties. I would like to search by exact match on

Re: Nested documents, block join - re-indexing a single document upon update

. -- Jack Krupansky From: danny teichthal Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 6:47 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Nested documents, block join - re-indexing a single document upon update Hi All, To make things short, I would like to use block joins, but to be able to index

Re: Nested documents, block join - re-indexing a single document upon update

individual child documents as well. -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: danny teichthal Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 3:58 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Nested documents, block join - re-indexing a single document upon update Thanks Jack, I understand

Nested documents, block join - re-indexing a single document upon update

Hi All, To make things short, I would like to use block joins, but to be able to index each document on the block separately. Is it possible? In more details: We have some nested parent-child structure where: 1. Parent may have a single level of children 2. Parent and