Hi,
I am sending a request to solr for exact match.
Example: (title:(Web 2.0 OR Social Networking) OR description: (Web
2.0 OR Social Networking))
But in the results I am getting stories matching Social, Web etc.
Please let me know what's going wrong.
Thanks,
Sunil
Look at what Solr returns when adding debugQuery=true for the parsed
query, and also consider how your fields are analyzed (their
associated type, etc).
Erik
On Jul 28, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Sunil wrote:
Hi,
I am sending a request to solr for exact match.
Example: (title:(Web 2.0
Both the fields are text type:
field name=description type=text indexed=true stored=true
required=false /
field name=title type=text indexed=true stored=true
required=false /
How debugQuery=true will help? I am not familiar with the output.
Thanks,
Sunil
-Original Message-
From: Erik
On Jul 28, 2008, at 5:31 AM, Sunil wrote:
Both the fields are text type:
field name=description type=text indexed=true stored=true
required=false /
field name=title type=text indexed=true stored=true
required=false /
The definition of the field type is important - perhaps it is
stripping
Hi,
Can we defined nested data structure in schema.xml for searching? is it
prossible or not?
Thanks Regards,
Ranjeet Jha
Hi Ranjeet,
Solr supports multi-valued fields and you can always denormalize your data.
Can you give more details on the problem you are trying to solve?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Ranjeet [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Hi,
Can we defined nested data structure in schema.xml for searching? is
Hi,
In our case there is Category object under Catalog object, so I do not want
to defined the data structure for the Category. I want to give the reference
of Category uder Catalog, how can I do this.
Regards,
Ranjeet
- Original Message -
From: Shalin Shekhar Mangar [EMAIL
Hi,
In Solr there is no hierarchy of objects. De-normalize everything into one
schema using multi-valued fields where applicable. Decide on what the
document should be. What do you want to return as individual results -- are
they catalogs or categories?
You can get more help if you give an
Shalin - yes the allfields field exists in my schema.xml file. It is a field
that has all of the text from all of the fields concatenated together into one
field.
My spellCheckIndexDir is created and has 2 segment files, but I think the index
is empty. When I initiate the 1st
On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Fuad Efendi wrote:
Hi,
It's unclear... found in schema.xml:
omitNorms: (expert) set to true to omit the norms associated with
this field (this disables length normalization and index-time
boosting for the field, and saves some memory). Only
Can you show us the query you are issuing? Make sure you add spellcheck=true
to the query as a parameter to turn on spell checking.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Andrew Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Shalin - yes the allfields field exists in my schema.xml file. It is a
field that has all of
-Original Message-
From: Shalin Shekhar Mangar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 10:09 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SpellCheckComponent problems (was: Multiple search
components in one handler - ie spellchecker)
Can you show us the query you
Hi Andrew,
Your configuration which you specified in the earlier thread looks fine.
Your query is also ok. The complete lack of spell check results in the
response you pasted suggests that the SpellCheckComponent is not added to
the SearchHandler's list of components.
Can you check your
I was just reviewing the solr logs and I noticed the following:
Jul 28, 2008 11:52:01 AM org.apache.solr.common.SolrException log
SEVERE: org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Error loading class
'org.apache.solr.handler.component.SpellCheckComponent'
It looks like the SpellCheckComponent is
Hi,
I was faced with the same issues reguarding multiwords synonyms
Let's say a synonyms list like:
club, bar, night cabaret
Now if we have a document containing club, with the default synonyms
filter behaviour with expand=true, we will end up in the lucene index with a
document containing
Hmm ... sorry, that was the output of a java program that uses solr that I ran
and noticed the error. That error doesn't happen when I start solr. Sorry for
the confusion.
I just changed my schema to have a dedicated field for spelling called
spelling and I created a new field type for the
Well I will include the stack trace for the aforementioned error:
Jul 28, 2008 12:20:17 PM org.apache.solr.common.SolrException log
SEVERE: org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Error loading class
'org.apache.solr.handler.component.SpellCheckComponent'
at
Well that means the nightly solr jar you are using is older than you think
it is. Try running solr normally without the program and see if you can get
it working.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Andrew Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Well I will include the stack trace for the aforementioned
-Original Message-
From: Shalin Shekhar Mangar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:38 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: SpellCheckComponent problems (was: Multiple search
components in one handler - ie spellchecker)
Well that means the nightly
Please see discussion at http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-665
Very simple:
map = new LinkedHashMap(initialSize, 0.75f, true) - LRU Cache
(and we need synchronized get())
map = new LinkedHashMap(initialSize, 0.75f, false) - FIFO
(and we do not need synchronized get())
--
Thanks,
Fuad
Hi, we are currently evaluating Solr and have been browsing the archives for
one particular issue but can¹t seem to find the answer, so please forgive me
if I¹m asking a repetitive question. We like the idea of having multiple
slave servers serving up queries and a master performing updates.
Hi all,
For some queries I need to return a lot of rows at once (say 100).
When performing these queries I notice a big difference between qTime (which
is mostly in the 15-30 ms range due to caching) and total time taken to
return the response (measured through SolrJ's elapsedTime), which takes
That high of a difference is due to the part of the index containing
these particular stored fields not being in OS cache. What's the size
on disk of your index compared to your physical RAM?
-Yonik
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Britske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
For some queries I
That's a bit too tight to have *all* of the index cached...your best
bet is to go to 4GB+, or figure out a way not to have to retrieve so
many stored fields.
-Yonik
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Britske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Size on disk is 1.84 GB (of which 1.3 GB sits in FDT files if
Another possibility is to partition the stored fields into a
frequently-accessed set and a full set. If the frequently-accessed
set is significantly smaller (in terms of # bytes), then the documents
will be tightly-packed on disk and the os caching will be much more
effective given the
I'm on a development box currently and production servers will be bigger, but
at the same time the index will be too.
Each query requests at most 20 stored fields. Why doesn't help
lazyfieldloading in this situation?
I don't need to retrieve all stored fields and I thought I wasn't doing this
What version of Solr/Lucene are you using?
On Jul 28, 2008, at 4:53 PM, Britske wrote:
I'm on a development box currently and production servers will be
bigger, but
at the same time the index will be too.
Each query requests at most 20 stored fields. Why doesn't help
lazyfieldloading in
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I'm going to investigate some more...
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Britske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Each query requests at most 20 stored fields. Why doesn't help
lazyfieldloading in this situation?
It's the disk seek that
Hi Frances,
HTMLStripWhitespaceTokenizerFactory wraps a WhitespaceTokenizer around an
HTMLStripReader.
You could extend HTMLStripReader to not decode named character entities, e.g.
by overriding HTMLStripReader.read() so that it calls an alternative
readEntity(), which instead of converting
: Expansion stemming ? Takes a root word and 'expands' it to all of its
: various forms ? can be used either at insertion time or at query
: time.
:
: How do I specify that I want the expansion stemming instead of the porter
: stemming?
there isn't anexpclit expansion stemming filter included
: When i'm looking for words taking care of distance between them, i'm using
: lucene syntax A B~distance... unfortunaly if A leads to A1 and A2 forms i
: should split this into syntax +(A1 B~dist A2 B~dist ) - this grows with
: progression depending of normal forms quantity of each term.
:
:
: I've been trying to return a field of type ExternalFileField in the search
: result. Upon examining XMLWriter class, it seems like Solr can't do this out
: of the box. Therefore, I've tried to hack Solr to enable this behaviour.
: The goal is to call to
: omitNorms: do I need it for full-text fields even if I don't need index-time
: boosting? I don't want to boost text where keyword repeated several time. Is
: my understanding correct?
if you omitNorms=true then you not only lose index-time doc/field
boosting, but you also loose lengthNorms
In general though i wondering if steping back a bit and modifying your
request handler to use a SolrDocumentList where you've already
flattened
the ExternalFileField into each SolrDocument would be an easier
approach
-- then you wouldnt' need to modify the ResponseWriter at all.
On 28-Jul-08, at 1:53 PM, Britske wrote:
Each query requests at most 20 stored fields. Why doesn't help
lazyfieldloading in this situation?
It does help, but not enough. With lots of data per document and not
a lot of memory, it becomes probabilistically likely that each doc
resides in
35 matches
Mail list logo
