Hoss
many thanks for the reply
Paul
On 8 March 2011 19:45, Chris Hostetter hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: 1. Why the problem occurs (has something changed between 1.4.1 and 3x)?
Various pieces of code dealing with config parsing have changed since
1.4.1 to be better about verifying
Hi all,
Does anyone know what does m on the y -axis stands for in req/sec graph for
update handler .
--
Thanks Regards,
Isan Fulia.
i am using solr for NRT with this version of solr ...
Solr Specification Version: 4.0.0.2010.10.26.08.43.14
Solr Implementation Version: 4.0-2010-10-26_08-05-39 1027394 - hudson -
2010-10-26 08:43:14
Lucene Specification Version: 4.0-2010-10-26_08-05-39
Lucene Implementation Version:
Hi all,
I just improved the Solr UIMA integration wiki page [1] so if anyone is
using it and/or has any feedback it'd be more than welcome.
Regards,
Tommaso
[1] : http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrUIMA
question: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/NearRealtimeSearchTuning
'PERFORMANCE WARNING: Overlapping onDeckSearchers=x
i got this message.
in my solrconfig.xml: maxWarmingSearchers=4, if i set this to 1 or 2 i got
exception. with 4 i got nothing, but the Performance Warning. the
wiki-articel
Are you using shards or have everything in same index?
- shards == distributed Search over several cores ? = yes, but not always.
but in generally not.
What problem did you experience with the StatsCompnent?
- if i use stats on my 34Million Index, no matter how many docs founded, the
sum takes
i am using NRT, and the caches are not always warmed, i think this is almost
a problem !?
-
--- System
One Server, 12 GB RAM, 2 Solr Instances, 7 Cores,
1 Core with 31 Million Documents other Cores 100.000
- Solr1 for
Great work!
On Wednesday 09 March 2011 11:20:41 Tommaso Teofili wrote:
Hi all,
I just improved the Solr UIMA integration wiki page [1] so if anyone is
using it and/or has any feedback it'd be more than welcome.
Regards,
Tommaso
[1] : http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrUIMA
--
Markus Jelsma
I tried to create an NRT like in the wiki but i got some problems with
autowarming and ondeckSearchers.
ervery minute i start a delta of one core and the other core start every
minute a commit of the index to search for it.
wiki says ... = 1 Searcher and fitlerCache warmupCount=3600. with this
maxWarmingSearcher=1 is good for current stable Solr versions where memory is
important. Overlapping warming searchers can be extremely memory consuming. I
don't know how cache warming behaves with NRT.
On Wednesday 09 March 2011 11:27:39 stockii wrote:
question:
Yes, I think this should be pushed upstream - insert a tee in the
document stream so that all documents go to both masters.
Then use a load balancer to make requests of the masters.
The tee itself then becomes a possible single point of failure, but
you didn't say anything about the
Hi Peter,
When I execute the commands you mentioned, nothing happend.
Below I show you the comands executed and the answered of they.
Sorry, but I don´t know how to enable the log; my jre is by default.
Rememeber I´m running the example-DIH (trunk\solr\example\example-DIH\solr);
java
make it sense to update solr for getting SOLR-571 ???
-
--- System
One Server, 12 GB RAM, 2 Solr Instances, 7 Cores,
1 Core with 31 Million Documents other Cores 100.000
- Solr1 for Search-Requests - commit every Minute
You have a large index with tough performance requirements on one server.
I would analyze your system to see if it's got any bottlenecks.
Watch out for auto-warming taking too long so it does not finish before next
commit()
Watch out for too frequent commits
Monitor mem usage (JConsole or
Hi,
You've included some output in your message, so I presume something
*did* happen when you ran the 'status' command (but it might not be
what you wanted to happen :-)
If you run:
http://localhost:8983/solr/mail/dataimport?command=status
and you get something like this back:
str
Jae,
NRT hasn't been implemented NRT as of yet in Solr, I think partially
because major features such as replication, caching, and uninverted
faceting suddenly are no longer viable, eg, it's another round of
testing etc. It's doable, however I think the best approach is a
separate request call
I think it's best to turn the warmupCount to zero because usually
there isn't time in between the creation of a new searcher to run the
warmup queries, eg, it'll negatively impact the desired goal of low
latency new index readers?
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:41 AM, stockii stock.jo...@googlemail.com
If you're using the delta import handler the problem would seem to go
away because you can have two separate masters running at all times,
and if one fails, you can then point the slaves to the secondary
master, that is guaranteed to be in sync because it's been importing
from the same database?
This has since been fixed. The problem was that there was not enough memory
on the machine. It works just fine now.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Chris Hostetter hossman_luc...@fucit.orgwrote:
: INFO: Creating a connection for entity id with URL:
:
Peter,
You´re right; may be I expose wrong because of my english.
I done everything you told me. I think that no find the folder when index.
What you thinking about?
Below I show to you part of the log.
09/03/2011 11:52:01 org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore execute
INFO: [mail] webapp=/solr
Hi,
When you ran the status command, what was the output?
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Matias Alonso matiasgalo...@gmail.com wrote:
Peter,
You´re right; may be I expose wrong because of my english.
I done everything you told me. I think that no find the folder when index.
What you
Log:
09/03/2011 11:54:58 org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore execute
INFO: [mail] webapp=/solr path=/dataimport params={command=status} status=0
QTime=0
XML
response
-
lst name=responseHeader
int name=status0/int
int name=QTime0/int
/lst
-
lst name=initArgs
-
lst name=defaults
str
I'm trying to do a search with SolrJ using digest authentication, but
I'm getting the following error:
org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: Unauthorized
I'm setting up SolrJ this way:
HttpClient client = new HttpClient();
ListString authPrefs = new ArrayListString();
If you have a wrapper, like an indexer app which prepares solr docs and
sends them into solr, then it is simple. The wrapper is your 'tee' and
it can send docs to both (or N) masters.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:soko...@ifactory.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Hi,
- Original Message
If you're using the delta import handler the problem would seem to go
away because you can have two separate masters running at all times,
and if one fails, you can then point the slaves to the secondary
master, that is guaranteed to be in sync because it's
Hi,
- Original Message
From: Robert Petersen rober...@buy.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 11:40:56 AM
Subject: RE: True master-master fail-over without data gaps
If you have a wrapper, like an indexer app which prepares solr docs and
sends them into
Oh, there is no DB involved. Think of a document stream continuously coming
in,
a component listening to that stream, grabbing docs, and pushing it to
master(s).
I don't think Solr is designed for this use case, eg, I wouldn't
expect deterministic results with the current architecture as
Hi,
- Original Message
Yes, I think this should be pushed upstream - insert a tee in the
document stream so that all documents go to both masters.
Then use a load balancer to make requests of the masters.
Hm, but this makes the tee app aware of this. What if I want to hide
Hi,
- Original Message
Oh, there is no DB involved. Think of a document stream continuously
coming
in,
a component listening to that stream, grabbing docs, and pushing it to
master(s).
I don't think Solr is designed for this use case, eg, I wouldn't
expect
Currently I use an application connected to a queue containing incoming
data which my indexer app turns into solr docs. I log everything to a
log table and have never had an issue with losing anything. I can trace
incoming docs exactly, and keep timing data in there also. If I added a
second
Hi,
- Original Message
I'd honestly think about buffer the incoming documents in some store that's
actually made for fail-over persistence reliability, maybe CouchDB or
something.
And then that's taking care of not losing anything, and the problem becomes
how
we make sure
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
You mean it's not possible to have 2 masters that are in nearly real-time
sync?
How about with DRBD? I know people use DRBD to keep 2 Hadoop NNs (their edit
logs) in sync to avoid the current NN SPOF, for example, so I'm thinking this
...but the index resides on disk doesn't it??? lol
-Original Message-
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:06 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: True master-master fail-over without data gaps
Hi,
- Original
Hi,
- Original Message
Currently I use an application connected to a queue containing incoming
data which my indexer app turns into solr docs. I log everything to a
log table and have never had an issue with losing anything.
Yeah, if everything goes through some storage that
On disk, yes, but only indexed, and thus far enough from the original content
to
make storing terms in Lucene's inverted index.
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
- Original Message
From: Robert
RAMdisk
...but the index resides on disk doesn't it??? lol
-Original Message-
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:06 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: True master-master fail-over without data gaps
Hi,
This is why there's block cipher cryptography.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Otis Gospodnetic
otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com wrote:
On disk, yes, but only indexed, and thus far enough from the original content
to
make storing terms in Lucene's inverted index.
Otis
Sematext ::
Brian,
I had the same problem a while back and set the JAVA_OPTS env variable
to something my machine could handle. That may also be an option for
you going forward.
Adam
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Brian Lamb
brian.l...@journalexperts.com wrote:
This has since been fixed. The problem was
I guess you could put a LB between slaves and masters, never thought of
that! :)
-Original Message-
From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:10 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: True master-master fail-over without data
Right. LB VIP on both sides of master(s). Black box.
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
- Original Message
From: Robert Petersen rober...@buy.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wed, March
Is there a way to perform string logic on the key field using a subquery or
some other method.
IE. If the left 4 characters of the key are ABCD, then include or exclude
those from the search.
Here is the laymans pseudo code for what I'm wanting to do:
*:* AND LEFT(KEY, 4) 'abcd'
How about something like:
for exclusion
+*:* -KEY:abcd*
for inclusion
+*:* +KEY:abcd*
Best
Erick
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Baughman da...@hostworks.com wrote:
Is there a way to perform string logic on the key field using a subquery or
some other method.
IE. If the left 4
On 3/9/2011 12:05 PM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
But check this! In some cases one is not allowed to save content to
disk (think
copyrights). I'm not making this up - we actually have a customer with this
cannot save to disk (but can index) requirement.
Do they realize that a Solr index is on
Hi,
- Original Message
From: Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org
On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
You mean it's not possible to have 2 masters that are in nearly real-time
sync?
How about with DRBD? I know people use DRBD to keep 2 Hadoop NNs (their
Hi,
It sounds like if you put those 4 chars in a separate field at index time you
could apply your logic on that at search time.
Otis
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
- Original Message
From: Daniel
Can't you skip the SAN and keep the indexes locally? Then you would
have two redundant copies of the index and no lock issues.
Also, Can't master02 just be a slave to master01 (in the master farm and
separate from the slave farm) until such time as master01 fails? Then
master02 would start
After About 4-5 hours the merge completed (ran out of heap)..as you
suggested..it was having memory issues..
Read queries during the merge were working just fine (they were taking
longer then normal ~30-60seconds).
I think I need to do more reading on understanding the merge/optimization
Hi,
I'm investigating how to set up a schema like this:
I want to index accounts and the products purchased (multiValued) by
that account but I also need the ability to search by the date the
product was purchased.
It would be easy if the purchase date wasn't part of the requirements.
How
Would having a solr-document represent a 'product purchase per account'
solve your problem?
You could then easily link the date of purchase to the document as well as
the account-number.
e.g:
fields: orderid (key), productid, product-characteristics,
order-characteristics (including date of
Hi all,
I know that I can add sort=score desc to the url to sort in descending
order. However, I would like to sort a MoreLikeThis response which returns
records like this:
lst name=moreLikeThis
result name=3 numFound=113611 start=0 maxScore=0.4392774
result name=2 numFound= start=0
Anyone have any clue on this on?
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Brian Lamb brian.l...@journalexperts.comwrote:
Hi all,
I am using dataimport to create my index and I want to use docBoost to
assign some higher weights to certain docs. I understand the concept behind
docBoost but I haven't
you can use the ScriptTransformer to perform the boost calcualtion and addition.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DataImportHandler#ScriptTransformer
dataConfig
script