Hi,
I am still struggling with this... but I guess would it be because for some
data there are maximum interger values for the fields start_year
end_year, like 2.14748365E9, which solr does not recognise as sfloat,
because there is a E letter?
In terms of doing ranged queries on multivalued
I created a wiki page shortly after posting to the list:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrWeblogic
From what we could tell Solr itself was fully functional, it was only
the admin tools that were failing.
Regards,
Ilan Rabinovitch
---
SCALE 7x: 2009 Southern California Linux Expo
Los Angeles,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:27 AM, Gregg Donovan gregg...@gmail.com wrote:
Noble,
Thanks for the suggestion. The unfortunate thing is that we really don't
know ahead of time what sort of replication delay we're going to encounter
-- it could be one millisecond or it could be one hour. So, we
Yes. It's totally acceptable.
2009/1/30 Bruno Aranda brunoara...@gmail.com
Hi, it is possible to create a dynamic field that is multi valued?
Cheers,
Bruno
--
Alexander Ramos Jardim
It may not be as fine-grained as you want, but also check the
QueryElevationComponent. This takes a preconfigured list of what the
top results should be for a given query and makes thoes documents the
top results.
Presumably, you could use click logs to determine what the top result
Thanks, Mark, for your answer,
Mark Miller wrote:
Truncation queries and stemming are difficult partners. You likely have
to accept compromise. You can try using multiple fields like you are,
I already have multiple fields, one per language, to be able to use
different stemmers. Wouldn't
I've thought about patching the QueryElevationComponent to apply
boosts rather than a specific sort. Then the file might look like..
query text=AAA doc id=A boost=5 / doc id=B boost=4 / /
query
And I could write a script that looks at click data once a day to fill
out this file.
Thanks for
I am build a system that indexes a bunch of data and then will let
users manually put the data in lists. I have seen http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UserTagDesign
The behavior I would like is identical to 'tagging' each document with
the list-id/user/order and then using standard faceting to
Are the issues ran into due to non-standard code in Solr, or is there
some WebLogic inconsistency?
-Todd Feak
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:n...@ger.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Ilan Rabinovitch
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 1:11 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re:
yes, applying a boost would be a good addition.
patches are always welcome ;)
On Jan 30, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Matthew Runo wrote:
I've thought about patching the QueryElevationComponent to apply
boosts rather than a specific sort. Then the file might look like..
query text=AAA doc id=A
Hi,
Ive just had a bump in the night where some feeds have disappeared, Im
wondering since Im running the base 1.3 copy would patching it w/
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-842
Break anything? Has anyone done this yet?
Thanks.
- Jon
We are on solr 1.3, and we use the default jetty server, which is included
in the solr 1.3 download package.
The java version is:
java version 1.5.0_12
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_12-b04)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 1.5.0_12-b04, mixed mode)
I
Gert Brinkmann wrote:
Thanks, Mark, for your answer,
Mark Miller wrote:
Truncation queries and stemming are difficult partners. You likely have
to accept compromise. You can try using multiple fields like you are,
I already have multiple fields, one per language, to be able to use
Mark Miller wrote:
Yeah, sounds small. Its odd you would see such slow performance. It
depends though. You may still have a *lot* of unique terms in there.
Is there a way to retrieve the list of terms in the index?
Gert
I am getting hit by a storm of these once a day or so:
SEVERE: org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Error opening new
searcher. exceeded limit of maxWarmingSearchers=16, try again later.
I keep bumping up maxWarmingSearchers. It's at 32 now. Is there any
way to figure out what the right
I'd advise setting it to a very low limit (like 2) and committing less
often. Once you get too many overlapping searchers, things will slow
to a crawl and that will just cause more to pile up.
The root cause is simply too many commits in conjunction with warming
too long. If you are using a dev
Gert Brinkmann wrote:
int name=distinct57971/int !-- is this much? --
Its a lot for a small index. The fuzzy query will enumerate all of those
terms and calculate an edit distance. Its not an insane amount of work,
but it jives with the slowness you see. Doing that 60,000 times for a
query
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
you can try indexing the full term at the same position as the stemmed
term,
what does this mean at the same position and how could I do this?
Write a custom filter. Normally, for every term, its position is
Hi all,What's the best way for me to split Solr/Lucene error message off to
a separate log?
Thanks
James
Yonik Seeley wrote:
I'd advise setting it to a very low limit (like 2) and committing less
often. Once you get too many overlapping searchers, things will slow
to a crawl and that will just cause more to pile up.
The root cause is simply too many commits in conjunction with warming
too long.
We've been using a Lucene index as the main data-store for ActiveMath,
the indexing process of which takes the XML fragments apart and stores
them in an organized way, including storage of the relationships both
ways.
The difference between SQL and Lucene in this case? Pure java was the
check:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrLogging
You configure whatever flavor logger to write error to a separate log
On Jan 30, 2009, at 4:36 PM, James Brady wrote:
Hi all,What's the best way for me to split Solr/Lucene error message
off to
a separate log?
Thanks
James
That should be fine (but apparently isn't), as long as you don't have some very
slow machine or if your caches are are large and configured to copy a lot of
data on commit.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Jon Drukman
Oh... I should really have found that myself :/
Thank you!
2009/1/30 Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com
check:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrLogging
You configure whatever flavor logger to write error to a separate log
On Jan 30, 2009, at 4:36 PM, James Brady wrote:
Hi all,What's the
fei dong wrote:
Hi buddy, I work on an audio search based on solr engine. I want to realize
lyric search and sort by relevance. Here is my confusion. .
My schema.xml is like this:
field name=id type=string indexed=true stored=true
required=true /
field name=artist type=text indexed=true
I profiled our application, and GC is definitely the problem. The IBM JVM
didn't change much. I'm currently looking into ways of reducing my memory
footprint.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Performance-%22dead-zone%22-due-to-garbage-collection-tp21588427p21758001.html
Has anyone tried Solr on the Sun Java Real-Time JVM
(http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/realtime/index.jsp)? I've read that
it includes better control over the garbage collector.
Thanks.
Wojtek
--
View this message in context:
I have a string field in my schema that actually numeric data. If I try a
range search:
fieldInQuestion:[ 100 TO 150 ]
I fetch back a lot of data that is NOT in this range, such as 11, etc.
Any idea why this happens? Is it because this is a string?
Thanks.
True, which is what I'll probably do, but is there any way to do this using
'string'? Actually I have even seen this with date fields, which seems very
odd (more data being returned than I expected).
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Koji Sekiguchi k...@r.email.ne.jp wrote:
Jim Adams wrote:
I
29 matches
Mail list logo
