Re: strange behavior of solr query parser

/bf9db95f218f49bac8e7971eb953a9fd9d13a2f0#diff-269ae02e56283ced3ce781cce21b3147R563 sincerely hongtai 送信元: "Staley, Phil R - DCF" Reply-To: "d...@lucene.apache.org" 日付: 2020年3月2日 月曜日 22:38 宛先: solr_user lucene_apache , "d...@lucene.apache.org" 件名: Re: strange behavior of solr query parser

Re: strange behavior of solr query parser

lucene_apache Cc: d...@lucene.apache.org Subject: strange behavior of solr query parser Hi, Our team found a strange behavior of solr query parser. In some specific cases, some conditional clauses on unindexed field will be ignored. for query like, q=A:1 OR B:1 OR A:2 OR B:2 if field B

strange behavior of solr query parser

Hi, Our team found a strange behavior of solr query parser. In some specific cases, some conditional clauses on unindexed field will be ignored. for query like, q=A:1 OR B:1 OR A:2 OR B:2 if field B is not indexed(but docValues="true"), "B:1" will be lost. but if you wri

Re: strange behavior

Hi David, I see. It fixed now by adding the (). Thank you so much! q=audit_author.name:(Burley,%20S.K.)%20AND%20entity.type:polymer -- Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html

Re: strange behavior

Hi Shawn, I see. I added () and it works now. Thank you very much for your help! q=audit_author.name:(Burley,%20S.K.)%20AND%20entity.type:polymer=1 -- Sent from: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-User-f472068.html

Re: strange behavior

On 6/6/2019 12:46 PM, Wendy2 wrote: Why "AND" didn't work anymore? I use Solr 7.3.1 and edismax parser. Could someone explain to me why the following query doesn't work any more? What could be the cause? Thanks! q=audit_author.name:Burley,%20S.K.%20AND%20entity.type:polymer It worked

Re: strange behavior

audit_author.name:Burley,%20S.K. translates to audit_author.name:Burley, DEFAULT_OPERATOR DEFAULT_FIELD:S.K. On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 2:46 PM Wendy2 wrote: > > Hi, > > Why "AND" didn't work anymore? > > I use Solr 7.3.1 and edismax parser. > Could someone explain to me why the following query

strange behavior

Hi, Why "AND" didn't work anymore? I use Solr 7.3.1 and edismax parser. Could someone explain to me why the following query doesn't work any more? What could be the cause? Thanks! q=audit_author.name:Burley,%20S.K.%20AND%20entity.type:polymer It worked previously but now returned very

Re: Strange Behavior When Extracting Features

If anyone else is following this thread, I replied on the Jira. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:07 AM, alessandro.benedetti wrote: > This is interesting, the EFI parameter resolution should work using the > quotes independently of the query parser. > At that point, the query

Re: Strange Behavior When Extracting Features

This is interesting, the EFI parameter resolution should work using the quotes independently of the query parser. At that point, the query parsers (both) receive a multi term text. Both of them should work the same. At the time I saw the mail I tried to reproduce it through the LTR module tests

Re: Strange Behavior When Extracting Features

I believe I've discovered a workaround. If you use: { "store": "redhat_efi_feature_store", "name": "case_description_issue_tfidf", "class": "org.apache.solr.ltr.feature.SolrFeature", "params": { "q":"{!dismax qf=text_tfidf}${text}" } }

Re: Strange Behavior When Extracting Features

I think this has nothing to do with the LTR plugin. The problem here should be just the way you use the local params, to properly pass multi term local params in Solr you need to use *'* : efi.case_description='added couple of fiber channel' This should work. If not only the first term will be

Strange Behavior When Extracting Features

Hi all, I'm getting some extremely strange behavior when trying to extract features for a learning to rank model. The following query incorrectly says all features have zero values: http://gss-test-fusion.usersys.redhat.com:8983/solr/access/query?q=added couple of fiber channel={!ltr model

Re: Strange behavior of solr

Is there any error message in the log when Solr stops indexing the file at line 2046? Regards, Edwin On 2 September 2015 at 17:17, Long Yan wrote: > Hey, > I have created a core with > bin\solr create -c mycore > > I want to index the csv sample files from solr-5.2.1 > >

Re: Strange behavior of solr

See example/films/README.txt The “name” field is guessed incorrectly (because the first film has name=“.45”, so indexing errors once it hits a name value that is no longer numeric. The README provides a command to define the name field *before* indexing. If you’ve indexed and had the name

Strange behavior of solr

Hey, I have created a core with bin\solr create -c mycore I want to index the csv sample files from solr-5.2.1 If I index film.csv under solr-5.2.1\example\films\, solr can only index this file until the line "2046,Wong Kar-wai,Romance Film|Fantasy|Science

Re: Strange Behavior

-Solutions) Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:31 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Strange Behavior Hi , I have a field type text_general where query type for worddelimiter I am using the below type: where wddftype.txt contains - DIGIT When I do a query I am not getting the right

Re: Strange Behavior

On 8/23/2014 9:01 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote: It sounds as if you are trying to treat hyphen as a digit so that negative numbers are discrete terms. But... that conflicts with the use of hyphen as a word separator. Sorry, but WDF does not support both. Pick one or the other, you can't have both.

Strange Behavior

Hi , I have a field type text_general where query type for worddelimiter I am using the below type: where wddftype.txt contains - DIGIT When I do a query I am not getting the right results. E.g. Name:Wi-Fi Gets results but Name:Wi-Fi Devices Make not getting any results but if I change it to

Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat.

the process if you`re running on Unix or changed the log level in Solr to get more information logged -Original Message- From: S.L [mailto:simpleliving...@gmail.com] Sent: June-06-14 2:33 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat

Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat.

: S.L [mailto:simpleliving...@gmail.com] Sent: June-06-14 2:33 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat. Anyone folks? On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, S.L simpleliving...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I

Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat.

Anyone folks? On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, S.L simpleliving...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I recently started using the spellchecker in my solrconfig.xml. I am able to build up an index in Solr. But,if I ever shutdown tomcat I am not able to restart it.The server never spits out the

RE: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat.

To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat. Anyone folks? On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, S.L simpleliving...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I recently started using the spellchecker in my solrconfig.xml. I am able to build up an index in Solr

Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat.

Subject: Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat. Anyone folks? On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 10:25 AM, S.L simpleliving...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I recently started using the spellchecker in my solrconfig.xml. I am able to build up an index in Solr. But,if I ever

Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat.

Hi Folks, I recently started using the spellchecker in my solrconfig.xml. I am able to build up an index in Solr. But,if I ever shutdown tomcat I am not able to restart it.The server never spits out the server startup time in seconds in the logs,nor does it print any error messages in the

Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat.

I guess if you try to copy the index and then kill the process of tomcat then it might help. If still the index need to be delete you would have the back up. Next time always make back up. On Jun 4, 2014 7:55 PM, S.L simpleliving...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, I recently started using the

Re: Strange Behavior with Solr in Tomcat.

Hi, This is not a case of accidental deletion , the only way I can restart the tomcat is by deleting the data directory for the index that was created earlier, this started happening after I started using spellcheckers in my solrconfig.xml. As long as the Tomcat is running its fine. Any help

Re: Strange behavior of edismax and mm=0 with long queries (bug?)

the query is much longer. I need to use mm=0 or mm=1. My plan was to use edismax as the pf2 and pf3 parameters should work well for my usecase. However when using longer queries, I get a strange behavior which can be seen in debugQuery. Here is an example: Collated Comments (used as query) I

Re: Strange behavior of edismax and mm=0 with long queries (bug?)

query term phrase matches exactly. -- Jack Krupansky From: Nils Kaiser Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014 10:10 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Strange behavior of edismax and mm=0 with long queries (bug?) Hey, I am currently using solr to recognize songs and people from a list of user

Strange behavior of edismax and mm=0 with long queries (bug?)

the collated comments as query. So it is a case where the query is much longer. I need to use mm=0 or mm=1. My plan was to use edismax as the pf2 and pf3 parameters should work well for my usecase. However when using longer queries, I get a strange behavior which can be seen in debugQuery. Here

Strange behavior while deleting

hi friends, I have observed a strange behavior, I have two indexes of same ids and same number of docs, and i am using a json file to delete records from both the indexes, after deleting the ids, the resulting indexes now show different count of docs, Not sure why I used curl with the same json

Re: Strange behavior while deleting

is the discrepancy - just a few, dozens, 10%, 50%? -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: abhishek jain Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:26 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Strange behavior while deleting hi friends, I have observed a strange behavior, I have two indexes of same ids

Re: Strange behavior while deleting

To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Reply To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Strange behavior while deleting Do the two cores have identical schema and solrconfig files? Are the delete and merge config settings the sameidentical? Are these two cores running on the same Solr server, or two

Re: Strange behavior while deleting

. -- Jack Krupansky -Original Message- From: abhishek.netj...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 5:48 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org ; solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Strange behavior while deleting Hi, These settings are commented in schema. These are two different solr

Strange behavior of gap fragmenter on highlighting

I'm seeing a rare behavior of the gap fragmenter on solr 3.6. Right now this is my configuration for the gap fragmenter: fragmenter name=gap default=true class=solr.highlight.GapFragmenter lst name=defaults int name=hl.fragsize150/int

Re: Strange behavior on text field with number-text content

Hmmm, there are two things you _must_ get familiar with when diagnosing these G.. 1 admin/analysis. That'll show you exactly what the analysis chain does, and it's not always obvious. 2 add debug=query to your input and look at the parsed query results. For instance, this

Strange behavior on text field with number-text content

Hello, I've got following problem. I have a text type in my schema and a field name of that type. That field contains a data, there is, for example, record that has 300letters as name. Now field type definition: fieldType name=text class=solr.TextField/fieldType And, of course, field

Re: Strange behavior on text field with number-text content

What does analyzer screen say in the Web AdminUI when you try to do that? Also, what are the tokens stored in the field (also in Web AdminUI). I think it is very strange to have TextField without a tokenizer chain. Maybe you get a standard one assigned by default, but I don't know what the

Re: Strange behavior on text field with number-text content

Hmmm, with 4.x I get much different behavior than you're describing, what version of Solr are you using? Besides Alex's comments, try adding debug=query to the url and see what comes out from the query parser. A quick glance at the code shows that DefaultAnalyzer is used, which doesn't do any

Re: Strange behavior on text field with number-text content

Thanks for your responses, I must admit that after hours of trying I made some mistakes. So the most problematic phrase will now be: "4nSolution Inc." which cannot be found using query: name:4nSolution or even name:4nSolution Inc.

Re: Strange behavior on text field with number-text content

solr-user-unsubscribe solr-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org 2013/5/28 Michał Matulka michal.matu...@gowork.pl Thanks for your responses, I must admit that after hours of trying I made some mistakes. So the most problematic phrase will now be: 4nSolution Inc. which cannot be found using

Re: Distributed query: strange behavior.

Eric, Thank you for the explanation. My problem was that allowing the docs with the same unique ids to be present in the multiple shards in a normal situation, makes it impossible to estimate the number of shards needed for an index with a really large number of docs. Thanks, Val On

Re: Distributed query: strange behavior.

Hi, Erick! That's it! I'm using a custom implementation of a SolrServer with distributed behavior that routes queries and updates using an in-house Round Robin method. But the thing is that I'm doing this myself because I've noticed that duplicated documents appears using LBHttpSolrServer

Re: Distributed query: strange behavior.

Hello, guys! Well, I've done some tests and I think that there exists some kind of bug related with distributed search. Currently I'm setting a key field that it's impossible to be duplicated, and I have experienced the same wrong behavior with numFound field while changing rows parameter. Has

Re: Distributed query: strange behavior.

Valery: I share your puzzlement. _If_ you are letting Solr do the document routing, and not doing any of the custom routing, then the same unique key should be going to the same shard and replacing the previous doc with that key. But, if you're using custom routing, if you've been experimenting

Re: Distributed query: strange behavior.

Uhm... that sounds reasonable. My data model may allow duplicate keys, but it's quite difficult. My key is a hash formed by an URL during a crawling process, and it's posible to re-crawl an existing URL. I think that I need to find a new way to compose an unique key to avoid this kind of bad

Re: Distributed query: strange behavior.

Shawn, How is it possible for more than one document with the same unique key to appear in the index, even in different shards? Isn't it a bug by definition? What am I missing here? Thanks, Val On 05/23/2013 09:55 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: On 5/23/2013 1:51 AM, Luis Cappa Banda wrote: I've

Re: Distributed query: strange behavior.

The uniqueKey is enforced within the same shard/index only. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Valery Giner valgi...@research.att.comwrote: Shawn, How is it possible for more than one document with the same unique key to appear in the index, even in different shards? Isn't it a bug by

Distributed query: strange behavior.

Hello, guys! I'm running Solr 4.3.0 and I've notice an strange behavior during distributed queries execution. Currently I have three Solr servers as shards and I when I do the following query... http://localhost:11080/twitter/data/select?q=*:**rows=10* shards=localhost:11080/twitter/data

Re: Distributed query: strange behavior.

On 5/23/2013 1:51 AM, Luis Cappa Banda wrote: I've query each Solr shard server one by one and the total number of documents is correct. However, when I change rows parameter from 10 to 100 the total numFound of documents change: I've seen this problem on the list before and the cause has been

Re: SolrCloud: Very strange behavior when doing atomic updates or documents reindexation.

luiscappa@ wrote: Hello everyone. I´ve starting to seriously worry about with SolrCloud due an strange behavior that I have detected. The situation is this the following: *1.* SolrCloud with one shard and two Solr instances. *2.* Indexation via SolrJ

Re: SolrCloud: Very strange behavior when doing atomic updates or documents reindexation.

, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Luis Cappa Banda luiscappa@ wrote: Hello everyone. I´ve starting to seriously worry about with SolrCloud due an strange behavior that I have detected. The situation is this the following: *1.* SolrCloud with one shard and two Solr

SolrCloud: Very strange behavior when doing atomic updates or documents reindexation.

Hello everyone. I´ve starting to seriously worry about with SolrCloud due an strange behavior that I have detected. The situation is this the following: *1.* SolrCloud with one shard and two Solr instances. *2.* Indexation via SolrJ with CloudServer and a custom BinaryLBHttpSolrServer that uses

Re: SolrCloud: Very strange behavior when doing atomic updates or documents reindexation.

:19 PM, Luis Cappa Banda luisca...@gmail.comwrote: Hello everyone. I´ve starting to seriously worry about with SolrCloud due an strange behavior that I have detected. The situation is this the following: *1.* SolrCloud with one shard and two Solr instances. *2.* Indexation via SolrJ

Re: SolrCloud: Very strange behavior when doing atomic updates or documents reindexation.

...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone. I´ve starting to seriously worry about with SolrCloud due an strange behavior that I have detected. The situation is this the following: *1.* SolrCloud with one shard and two Solr instances. *2.* Indexation via SolrJ with CloudServer and a custom

Re: SolrCloud: Very strange behavior when doing atomic updates or documents reindexation.

wrote: Hello everyone. I´ve starting to seriously worry about with SolrCloud due an strange behavior that I have detected. The situation is this the following: *1.* SolrCloud with one shard and two Solr instances. *2.* Indexation via SolrJ with CloudServer and a custom

Re: SolrCloud: Very strange behavior when doing atomic updates or documents reindexation.

everyone. I´ve starting to seriously worry about with SolrCloud due an strange behavior that I have detected. The situation is this the following: *1.* SolrCloud with one shard and two Solr instances. *2.* Indexation via SolrJ with CloudServer and a custom

Re: SolrCloud: Very strange behavior when doing atomic updates or documents reindexation.

later down the stack. The bug you filed needs to be fixed to get the problem solved. On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Luis Cappa Banda luisca...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone. I´ve starting to seriously worry about with SolrCloud due an strange behavior that I

Re: SolrCloud: Very strange behavior when doing atomic updates or documents reindexation.

luisca...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everyone. I´ve starting to seriously worry about with SolrCloud due an strange behavior that I have detected. The situation is this the following: *1.* SolrCloud with one shard and two Solr instances. *2.* Indexation via SolrJ

Field names w/ leading digits cause strange behavior

the have fields that start with digits? If so, is there a different way to specify them using the fl parameter? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Field-names-w-leading-digits-cause-strange-behavior-tp3936354p3936354.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing

Re: Field names w/ leading digits cause strange behavior

/long /doc ... Is it ok the have fields that start with digits? If so, is there a different way to specify them using the fl parameter? Thanks! -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Field-names-w-leading-digits-cause-strange-behavior-tp3936354p3936354.html

Re: Field names w/ leading digits cause strange behavior

Thank you for verifying the issue. I've created a ticket at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3407 -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Field-names-w-leading-digits-cause-strange-behavior-tp3936354p3936599.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list

Re: Strange behavior with search on empty string and NOT

: Would it be a good idea to have Solr throw syntax error if an empty string : query occurs? erick's explanation wasn't very precise ... solr doesn't have any special handling of empty strings, but what you are searching for *might* be a totally valid query based on how the field type is

Re: Strange behavior with search on empty string and NOT

Would it be a good idea to have Solr throw syntax error if an empty string query occurs? -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Strange-behavior-with-search-on-empty-string-and-NOT-tp3818023p3823572.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Strange behavior with search on empty string and NOT

double name=time0.0/double /lst /lst /lst /lst /response -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Strange-behavior-with-search-on-empty-string-and-NOT-tp3818023p3818023.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Strange behavior with search on empty string and NOT

/lst /lst /lst /response -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Strange-behavior-with-search-on-empty-string-and-NOT-tp3818023p3818023.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: strange behavior of scores and term proximity use

You might try with a less fraught search phrase, to be or not to be is a classic query that may be all stop words. Otherwise, I'm clueless. On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Ariel Zerbib ariel.zer...@gmail.com wrote: I tested with the version 4.0-2011-11-04_09-29-42. Ariel 2011/11/17 Erick

Re: strange behavior of scores and term proximity use

I tested with the version 4.0-2011-11-04_09-29-42. Ariel 2011/11/17 Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com Hmmm, I'm not seeing similar behavior on a trunk from today, when did you get your copy? Erick On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Ariel Zerbib ariel.zer...@gmail.com wrote: Hi,

Re: strange behavior of scores and term proximity use

Hmmm, I'm not seeing similar behavior on a trunk from today, when did you get your copy? Erick On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Ariel Zerbib ariel.zer...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, For this term proximity query: ab_main_title_l0:to be or not to be~1000

strange behavior of scores and term proximity use

Hi, For this term proximity query: ab_main_title_l0:to be or not to be~1000 http://localhost:/solr/select?q=ab_main_title_l0%3A%22og54ct8n+to+be+or+not+to+be+5w8ojsx2%22~1000sort=score+descstart=0rows=3fl=ab_main_title_l0%2Cscore%2CiddebugQuery=true The third first results are the following

Re: Strange behavior

Have you stopped Solr before manually copying the data? This way you can be sure that index is the same and you didn't have any new docs on the fly. 2011/6/14 Denis Kuzmenok forward...@ukr.net: What  should  i provide, OS is the same, environment is the same, solr is  completely  copied,  

Strange behavior

Hi. I've debugged search on test machine, after copying to production server the entire directory (entire solr directory), i've noticed that one query (SDR S70EE K) does match on test server, and does not on production. How can that be?

Re: Strange behavior

I think you will need to provide more information than this, no-one on this list is omniscient AFAIK. François On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Denis Kuzmenok wrote: Hi. I've debugged search on test machine, after copying to production server the entire directory (entire solr directory),

Re: Strange behavior

What should i provide, OS is the same, environment is the same, solr is completely copied, searches work, except that one, and that is strange.. I think you will need to provide more information than this, no-one on this list is omniscient AFAIK. François On Jun 14, 2011, at 10:44

Re: Strange behavior

Well, you could provide the results with debugQuery=on. You could provide the schema.xml and solrconfig.xml files for both. You could provide a listing of your index files. You could provide some evidence that you've tried chasing down your problem using tools like Luke or the Solr admin

strange behavior of echoParams

Dear list, after setting echoParams to none wildcard search isn't working. Only if I set echoParams to explicit then wildcard is possible. http://wiki.apache.org/solr/CoreQueryParameters states that echoParams is for debugging purposes. We use Solr 3.1.0. Snippet from solrconfig.xml:

Re: strange behavior of echoParams

What does the parsed query look like with debugQuery=true for both scenarios? Any difference? Doesn't make any sense that echoParams would have an effect, unless somehow your search client is relying on parameters returned to do something with them.?! Erik On Apr 13, 2011, at 09:57

Re: strange behavior of echoParams

Hi Erik, never mind. Can't reproduce this strange behavior. Obviously stopping and starting of solr solved this. Thanks, Bernd Am 13.04.2011 16:00, schrieb Erik Hatcher: What does the parsed query look like with debugQuery=true for both scenarios? Any difference? Doesn't make any sense

RE: Strange behavior for certain words

Hi,        Thanks for your response. Attached are the Schema.xml and sample docs that were indexed. The query and response are as below. The attachment Prodsku4270257.xml has a field paymenttype whose value is 'prepaid'. query:

Strange behavior for certain words

Hi, We are trying to use SOLR for searching our catalog online and during QA came across a interesting case where SOLR is not returning results that it should. Specificially, we have indexed things like Title and Description, of the words in the Title happens to be Prepaid' and Postpaid.

Re: Strange behavior for certain words

Hmmm, there's not much information to go on here. You might review this page: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UsingMailingLists and post with more information. At minimum, the field definitions, the query output (include debugQuery=on), perhaps what comes out of the analysis admin page for both

RE: Strange behavior for certain words

and Regards Rama K Atmakur. Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 20:46:11 -0400 Subject: Re: Strange behavior for certain words From: erickerick...@gmail.com To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Hmmm, there's not much information to go on here. You might review this page: http://wiki.apache.org/solr

RE: Strange behavior for certain words

. regards, Naga Ranjan -Original Message- From: RamaKrishna Atmakur [mailto:ramkrishn...@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:57 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Strange behavior for certain words Hi, We are trying to use SOLR for searching our catalog online

Re: Strange Behavior When Using CSVRequestHandler

the second and third times? I also have this line in solrconfig.xml, if it matters: requestParsers enableRemoteStreaming=true multipartUploadLimitInKB=2048 / Thanks, Dan -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Strange-Behavior-When-Using-CSVRequestHandler

Re: Strange Behavior When Using CSVRequestHandler

://old.nabble.com/Strange-Behavior-When-Using-CSVRequestHandler-tp27026926p27026926.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Strange-Behavior-When-Using-CSVRequestHandler-%28Solr-1.4%29-tp27026926p27061086.html

Strange Behavior When Using CSVRequestHandler

/Strange-Behavior-When-Using-CSVRequestHandler-tp27026926p27026926.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Strange Behavior When Using CSVRequestHandler

also have this line in solrconfig.xml, if it matters: requestParsers enableRemoteStreaming=true multipartUploadLimitInKB=2048 / Thanks, Dan -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Strange-Behavior-When-Using-CSVRequestHandler-tp27026926p27026926.html Sent from the Solr

RE: SOLR uniqueKey - extremely strange behavior! Documents disappeared...

[mailto:f...@efendi.ca] Sent: August-18-09 12:25 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: SOLR uniqueKey - extremely strange behavior! Documents disappeared... sorry for typo in prev msg, Increase = 2,297,231 - 1,786,552 = 500,000 (average) RATE (non-unique-id:unique-id) = 7,000,000 : 500,000

SOLR uniqueKey - extremely strange behavior! Documents disappeared...

in context: http://www.nabble.com/SOLR-%3CuniqueKey%3E---extremely-strange-behavior%21-Documents-disappeared...-tp25017728p25017728.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: SOLR uniqueKey - extremely strange behavior! Documents disappeared...

. This morning index size was about 4Gb, then suddenly dropped below 0.5 Gb. Why? I haven't issued any commit... I am using ramBufferMB=8192 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SOLR-%3CuniqueKey%3E---extremely-strange-behavior%21-Documents-disappeared...-tp25017728p25017728.html

Re: SOLR uniqueKey - extremely strange behavior! Documents disappeared...

-%3CuniqueKey%3E---extremely-strange-behavior%21-Documents-disappeared...-tp25017728p25017728.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SOLR-%3CuniqueKey%3E---extremely-strange-behavior%21-Documents-disappeared

Re: SOLR uniqueKey - extremely strange behavior! Documents disappeared...

-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SOLR-%3CuniqueKey%3E---extremely-strange-behavior%21-Documents-disappeared...-tp25017728p25017728.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com

Re: SOLR uniqueKey - extremely strange behavior! Documents disappeared...

size was about 4Gb, then suddenly dropped below 0.5 Gb. Why? I haven't issued any commit... I am using ramBufferMB=8192 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SOLR-%3CuniqueKey%3E---extremely-strange-behavior%21-Documents-disappeared...-tp25017728p25018221.html Sent

Re: SOLR uniqueKey - extremely strange behavior! Documents disappeared...

haven't issued any commit... I am using ramBufferMB=8192 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SOLR-%3CuniqueKey%3E---extremely-strange-behavior%21-Documents-disappeared...-tp25017728p25018263.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Strange behavior

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try putting the stemmer after the lowercase filter. -Yonik On Feb 12, 2008 9:15 AM, Traut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Please take a look at this strange behavior (connected with stemming I suppose): type: fieldtype name=customTextField

Strange behavior

Hi all Please take a look at this strange behavior (connected with stemming I suppose): type: fieldtype name=customTextField class=solr.TextField indexed=true stored=false analyzer type=query tokenizer class=solr.StandardTokenizerFactory/ filter class

Re: Strange behavior

at this strange behavior (connected with stemming I suppose): type: fieldtype name=customTextField class=solr.TextField indexed=true stored=false analyzer type=query tokenizer class=solr.StandardTokenizerFactory/ filter class=solr.StopFilterFactory ignoreCase=true

Re: Strange behavior

Try putting the stemmer after the lowercase filter. -Yonik On Feb 12, 2008 9:15 AM, Traut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all Please take a look at this strange behavior (connected with stemming I suppose): type: fieldtype name=customTextField class=solr.TextField indexed=true stored=false

Re: Strange behavior MoreLikeThis Feature

Now when I run the following query: http://localhost:8080/solr/mlt?q=id:neardup06mlt.fl=featuresmlt.mindf=1mlt.mintf=1mlt.displayTerms=detailswt=jsonindent=on try adding: debugQuery=on to your query string and you can see why each document matches... My guess is that features uses a text

Re: Strange behavior MoreLikeThis Feature

Thanks Ryan. I now know the reason why. Before I explain the reason, let me correct the mistake I made in my earlier mail. I was not using the first document mentioned in the xml . Instead it was this one: doc field name=idIW-02/field field name=nameiPod amp; iPod Mini USB 2.0 Cable/field

  1   2   >