Hi Shushuai,
Just a few thoughts.
I would guess that most people would argue for implementing
multi-tenancy within your core (via some unique filter ID) or collection
(via document routing) because of the headache of managing individual
cores at the scale you are talking about.
There are
Lajos,
Thanks a lot for your insighful thoughts.
-
The most important thing you have to lock down is whether there is a need to
customize the schema/solrconfig for each tenant. If there is, then having
individual cores per tenant is going to be a stronger
That's for nested documents, not nested fields. Nested documents is a
technique for grouping a block of related documents along with a parent
document and then being able to join the parent and a child. Solr has no
support for nested fields - you need to flatten your fields, such as
Hi,
I am new to Solr japanese.
I added the support for japanese on schema.xml
How can i insert Japanese text into that field either by solr client (java /
php / ruby ) or by curl
schema.xml
field name=username type=string indexed=true stored=true
While upgrading from 4.2.1 to 4.6.1 I noticed that many of the fields
defined in the example schema.xml that used to be indexed and not stored
are now defined as indexed and stored. Is there anything behind this
change other than the idea that it would be more convenient to have all
the
Perhaps so atomic updates work?
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - solve Solr GC pauses with off-heap filters
and fieldcache
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Michael Sokolov
msoko...@safaribooksonline.com wrote:
While upgrading from 4.2.1 to 4.6.1 I noticed that many of the fields
defined in the
Hi Shushuai,
---
Finally, I would (in general) argue for cloud-based implementations to give you
data redundancy ...
---
Do you mean using multi-sharding to have multiple replicas of cores
(corresponding to tenants) across nodes?
Shushuai
Hello,
The following type does not get analyzed properly on the solr 4.7.0
analysis page:
fieldType name=text_en_splitting class=solr.TextField
positionIncrementGap=100 autoGeneratePhraseQueries=true
analyzer type=index
charFilter class=solr.HTMLStripCharFilterFactory/
!--
The char filter is not broken. There's a bug in 4.7 in the analysis UI:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5800
It was unclear to me if it would be part of a 4.7.1 release. I hope so,
as it'll probably save people a lot of time from thinking their
analyzers are broken.
Sent from my
Hi Lajos, thanks again.
Your suggestion is to support multi-tenant via collection in a Solr Cloud:
putting small tenants in one collection and big tenants in their own
collections.
My original question was to find out which approach is better: supporting
multi-tenant at collection level
Yes, that (https://wiki.apache.org/solr/Atomic_Updates) would make
sense; thanks for the insight.
-Mike
On 3/15/2014 1:07 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
Perhaps so atomic updates work?
-Yonik
http://heliosearch.org - solve Solr GC pauses with off-heap filters
and fieldcache
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014
Hi Doug,
I have tried the patch and seems to have corrected the issue. Thanks for
pointing to the jira.
Dmitry
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Doug Turnbull
dturnb...@opensourceconnections.com wrote:
The char filter is not broken. There's a bug in 4.7 in the analysis UI:
Could it be that you had dropped a pre-4.2.1 schema into 4.2.1? I mean, I
just exhaustively examined all schema.xml changes between 4.2.1 and 4.6.1
(all 6 of them) and saw no wholesale change to stored=true. Maybe somebody
on your end removed a lot of fields from the 4.2.1 release of
Hi Shushuai,
Yes, as Robi noted, you have to be careful with terminology: core
generally refers to the traditional Solr configuration of a single index
+ configuration on a single node (optionally replicated to others). A
collection is a distributed index that is associated with a
Hi
Overall I think you are mixing up your terminology. What used to be called a
'core' is now called a 'collection' in solr cloud. In the old master slave
setup, you made separate cores and replicated them to all slaves. Now they
want you to think of them as collections and let the cloud
Thanks for bringing closure to this, it may very
well help the _next_ person to have the same
problem.
Erick
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Croci Francesco Luigi (ID SWS)
fcr...@id.ethz.ch wrote:
Ok. Maybe I found the problem:
in the solrconfig.xml I have str name=lowernamestrue/str
I
What are our complex queries? You
say that your app will very rarely see the
same query thus you aren't using caches...
But, if you can move some of your
clauses to fq clauses, then the filterCache
might well be used to good effect.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Salman Akram
right, after an OOM error, the state of the
machine may be wonky. So the obvious thing
is to try to get rid of the OOM error
how many unique values do you have in your
field you're faceting on?
Not too helpful, but the best I can do.
Erick
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Avishai Ish-Shalom
This is like allowing many users to access the
disk your database is on. Don't do it.
If by many users on a server, you mean
many users having shell access, well, you have
many more problems than securing the Solr
index.
If you mean you have many users accessing an app
that lives on the server,
System Config
--
Web App Server: WebSphere 7.0
SOLR 4.7.0
Windows 2008R2
solrconfig.xml (replication section on slave)
lst name=slave
str name=masterUrlhttp://master-IP:9081/solr/#/collection1/str
str name=httpBasicAuthUserID/str
str
Hi Shamik,
You should be seeing the same result counts with grouping and the
CollapsingQParserPlugin, unless there are null values in the collapse
field. Let's see if we can figure out what the issue is.
Can you post the schema.xml field type definition for the ADSKDedup field?
Also can you
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@heliosearch.com wrote:
I've been meaning to create a heliosearch 4x branch to get us a big
step closer to cutting a stable release. I should probably do that
sooner rather than later...
Done.
I've created branch helio which is based on
It's almost certain that you don't need the hash (#). That's just a
bit in the admin URL that isn't relevant to regular URLs.
Best,
Erick
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Newallo, Dexter - DOT
dexter.newa...@dot.wi.gov wrote:
System Config
--
Web App Server: WebSphere 7.0
Lajos/Robi, thanks for the answers.
For others' convenience, I copied Robi's reply below so this thread contains
all discussions.
Based on Lajos' detailed comments, there seems no single answer to this
question. There are trade-offs between collection level and core level, and one
needs to
24 matches
Mail list logo
