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 box. Without knowing the field names, one
cannot say what to search. So, the
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
Yonik, those are all facts. Which I do not disagree with at all.
But there are also consequences when you bring the rest of the facts
and the assumptions and documented workflows into play. My comment was
trying to address the situation on that level
I am all for improving performance. I am just
On Mar 23, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch arafa...@gmail.com
wrote:
For example, I am not even sure if we can create a copyField
definition via REST API yet.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Schema+API#SchemaAPI-AddaNewCopyFieldRule
On Mar 23, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Yonik Seeley ysee...@gmail.com wrote:
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
I think you mean https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7290?
Erick
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Mike Murphy mmurphy3...@gmail.com wrote:
That's it!
I hand edited the file that says you are not supposed to edit it and
removed that copyField.
Indexing performance is now back to
I'm trying out schemaless in solr 5.0, but the indexing seems quite a
bit slower than it did in the past on 4.10. Any pointers?
--Mike
Please review: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UsingMailingLists
You haven't quantified the slowdown. Or given any details on how
you're measuring the slowdown. Or how you've configured your setups
in 4.10 and 5.0. Or... Ad Hossman would say details matter.
Best,
Erick
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 8:35
I start up solr schemaless and index a bunch of data, and it takes a
lot longer to finish indexing.
No configuration changes, just straight schemaless.
--Mike
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Erick Erickson
erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
Please review:
Same data with same version of Solr with the only difference between
Schema vs. Schemaless? How much longer, 10%, 2x, 20x?
Schemaless mode has a much more complex UpdateRequestProcessor chain,
that's partially what makes it schemaless. But I hesitate pointing
fingers at that without any real
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
That's it!
I hand edited the file that says you are not supposed to edit it and
removed that copyField.
Indexing performance is now back to expected levels.
I created an issue for this, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7284
--Mike
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Yonik Seeley
12 matches
Mail list logo
