Hi All,
Aol is hosting a meetup in Dulles VA. The topic this time is Solr/ Solr Cloud.
http://www.meetup.com/Code-Brew/events/53217/
Thanks,
Rishi.
Hi Chris thank you for replying. My content field in the schema is
stored=true and indexed=false because I am copying the content field
in text field which is by default indexed=true.
I was having a query that I am able to search in the html documents I had
fed to the solr, but as the results
: Hi everyone, i am new to solr technology and not getting a way to get back
: the original HTML document with Hits highlighted into it. what
: configuration and where i can do to instruct SolrCell/ Tika so that it does
: not strips down the tags of HTML document in the content field.
I _think_
- From: Divyanand Tiwari
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:52 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How can i instruct the Solr/ Solr Cell to output the original
HTML document which was fed to it.?
Thank you for replying sir !!!
I have two queries related with this -
1) So
for
highlighting.
See:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.HTMLStripCharFilterFactory
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message-
From: Divyanand Tiwari
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:28 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: How can i instruct the Solr/ Solr
Thank you for replying sir !!!
I have two queries related with this -
1) So in this case which request handler I have to use because
'ExtractingRequestHandler' by default strips the html content and the
default handler 'UpdateRequestHandler' does not accepts the HTML contrents.
2) How can I
-Original Message-
From: Divyanand Tiwari
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:52 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: How can i instruct the Solr/ Solr Cell to output the original
HTML document which was fed to it.?
Thank you for replying sir !!!
I have two queries related
:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Data-from-deleted-from-Solr-Solr-cloud-tp4028055p4028252.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Data-from-deleted-from-Solr-Solr-cloud-tp4028055.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
?
--Shreejay
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Data-from-deleted-from-Solr-Solr-cloud-tp4028055.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi All
I am trying to port and application developed using Lucene based Indexer +
UIMA, in to SOlr+UIMA, for the past 3,4 days.
I am not able to comprehend where exactly does the UIMA processing get
added.
Does it get added after I say something like:
UpdateResponse response = server.add(a list
You'll need to be a bit careful using joins, as the performance hit
can be significant if you have lots of cross-referencing to do, which
I believe you would given your scenario.
Your table could be setup to use the username as the key (for fast
lookup), then map these to your own data class or
Just to chip in my 2 cents:
You know you can increase the max number of boolean clauses in the
configuration files?
Depending on your situation it might not be a permanent fix, but it
could provide some instant relief.
Constantijn
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Peter Sturge
Do you mean that we have current Index as it is and have a separate core
which has only the user-id ,product-id relation and at while querying ,do a
join between the two cores based on the user-id.
Exactly. You can index user-id, product-id relation either to the same
core or to different
Thanks ,Peter .
This very much seems to be the solution that I should be going forward with
.Thanks for your time and clear explanation.
Regards
Sujatha
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Peter Sturge peter.stu...@gmail.comwrote:
You'll need to be a bit careful using joins, as the
Constantijn,
I am aware of this and we have already increased max boolean clauses to
3500 from the default 1200 for all our 200+ instances .
But the requirement is that we could have n number of products running
to several thousands for each of the instances and since n is not defined
,
Alexey ,
We are not planning to upgrade our solr version at the moment as all is fine
with the current version so far and hence would not be able to try this
solution .
Regards
Sujatha
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Alexey Serba ase...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you mean that we have current
So a search for a product once the user logs in and searches for only the
products that he has access to Will translate to something like this . ,the
product ids are obtained form the db for a particular user and can run
into n number.
search term fq=product_id(100 10001 ..n number)
Peter ,
Thanks for the clarification.
Why I specifically asked was because, we have many search instances
(200+) on a single JVM.
Each of these instaces could have n users and each user can subscribe to
n products .Now accordng to your suggestion , I need to maintain an
in-memory list of
Alexey,
Do you mean that we have current Index as it is and have a separate core
which has only the user-id ,product-id relation and at while querying ,do a
join between the two cores based on the user-id.
This would involve us to Index/delete the product as and when the user
subscription
Thanks ,Peter.
I am not a Java Programmer and hence the code seems all Greek and Latin to
me .I do have a basic knowledge ,but all this Map,hashMap
,Hashlist,NamedList , I dont understand.
However I would like to implement the solution that you have mentoned ,so
if you have any pointers for
Hello,
Our Use Case is as follows
Several solr webapps (one JVM) ,Each webapp catering to one client .Each
client has their users who can purchase products from the site .Once they
purchase ,they have full access to the products ,other wise they can only
view details .
The products are not
Hi,
SOLR-1834 is good when the original documents' ACL is accessible.
SOLR-1872 is good where the usernames are persistent - neither of
these really fit your use case.
It sounds like you need more of an 'in-memory', transient access
control mechanism. Does the access have to exist beyond the
Thanks Peter , for your input .
I really would like a document and schema agnostic solution as in solr
1872.
Am I right in my assumption that SOLR1872 is same as the solution that
we currently have where we add a flter query of the products to orignal
query and hence (SOLR 1872) will
SOLR-1872 doesn't add discrete booleans to the query, it does it
programmatically, so you shouldn't see this problem. (if you have a
look at the code, you'll see how it filters queries)
I suppose you could modify SOLR-1872 to use an in-memory,
dynamically-updated user list (+ associated filters)
: have solved it in their client. I can't modify Solr / Lucene code and I'm
: using Solr 1.2.
:
: What I have done is simple. Given a user input, I break it into words and
: then analyze each word. Any word contains wildcards (* Or ?) I lowercase
: it.
:
: While the logic is simple, I'm not
it? That is, is breaking on generic whitespaces (independent of
the analyzer in use) good enough?
Thanks.
-- George
-Original Message-
From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 9:35 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr* != solr*
George
=solr.EnglishPorterFilterFactory
protected=protwords.txt/
filter class=solr.RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilterFactory/
/analyzer
/fieldType
Btw, Solr, solr, sOlr, etc. works. It's a problem with wild cards.
Thanks in advance.
-- George
/
filter class=solr.RemoveDuplicatesTokenFilterFactory/
/analyzer
/fieldType
Btw, Solr, solr, sOlr, etc. works. It's a problem with wild
cards.
Thanks in advance.
-- George
29 matches
Mail list logo
