Hi,
I am new to using SOLR.
I have read that the default sorting is by the score desc.
However when I ran the query, I get some erroneous results.
This is the query I ran:
solr include_in_directory_p:t AND active_p:t AND (in_shelves:(0777,1)^100
OR in_groups:(02343^50 02345^30 abc xyz)); score
Hi,
Can Solr Search any Lucene Index. If YES what should be change in
configuration.
Thanks
Narendra
I'd like to hire a few hours of someone's time: someone who is very
familiar with Lucene and Solr and can give advice on how to best set
up a new system.
I run a small online store that would like to convert our product
search to Solr/Lucene.
I'll be doing most of the work, (the tutorial
Is there any way to query - find the string which first char is a or A.
Thanks,
Jae
Hello,
Is there a way in SOLR to escape * and '?' ?
Regards,
Marius
On 7/16/07, Marius Hanganu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way in SOLR to escape * and '?' ?
There is URL escaping, and there is query parser escaping.
URL encoding is standard (percent encoding), and parser escaping is
the same as Lucene (use a backslash).
It would be easier to help if
Wow, that was fast :-)
We're executing URL based queries and URL escaping is not the problem.
We're trying NOT to allow searches with *. So if the user searches for
a* - instead of returning all records starting with a, we would return
all records containing the a* string.
Regards,
Marius
Hi all,
My facet browsing performance has been decent on my system until I add my
custom Analyser. Initially, I facetted title field which is of default
string type (no analysers, tokenisers...) and got quick responses (first
query is just under 1s, subsequent queries are 0.1s). I created a
Since you went from a non multi-valued string type (which Solr knows
has at most one value per document) to a custom analyzer type (which
could produce multiple tokens per document), Solr switched tactics
from using the FieldCache for faceting to using the filterCache.
Right now, you could try
I don't know if there is one, but if you need this kind of search to for
example show all docs starting with an a or A, I would just add an extra
field only containing the first letter. This is *much* faster in lucene, and
for many documents you don't risk the too many boolean clauses (though
Thanks Yonik. In my case, there is only one title field per document so is
there a way to force Solr to work the old way? My analyser doesn't break up
the title field into multiple tokens. It only tries to format the field
value (to lower case, remove unwanted chars and words). Therefore, it's no
On 7/16/07, climbingrose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Yonik. In my case, there is only one title field per document so is
there a way to force Solr to work the old way? My analyser doesn't break up
the title field into multiple tokens. It only tries to format the field
value (to lower case,
I've tried both of your recommendations (use facet.enum.cache.minDf=1000 and
optimise the index). The query time is around 0.4-0.5s now but it's still
slow compared to the old string type. I haven't tried to increase
filterCache but 100 of cached items looks a bit too much for my server
atm.
I'd like to hire a few hours of someone's time: someone who is very
familiar with Lucene and Solr and can give advice on how to best set
it up for our shop's needs.
I run a small online store that would like to convert our product
search to Solr/Lucene.
I'll be doing most of the work, (the
Thanks!
Marius
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 7/16/07, Marius Hanganu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're trying NOT to allow searches with *. So if the user searches for
a* - instead of returning all records starting with a, we would return
all records containing the a* string.
OK, a backslash escape
So you want your category display to be controlled by SOLR? Why not
keep the hierarchical structure of categories in a RDBMS, then keep
the product index in SOLR?
Corey
On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:56 PM, Matthew Runo wrote:
Hello!
I was very surprised to find that this wasn't in the email
I'm certainly not smart enough to look under the hood of SOLR, but from
the one basic installation I've been messing with, it seems like the
faceting is for non-hierarchical data only. I could be wrong, though. In
my mind categories and facets are similar but distinct, like the
category
Here's one approach that should work: You could treat departments the
way the sample app treats manufacturers, with a manu field (tokenized)
and a manu_exact field (nontokenized). You would then do your initial
search (mens+footwear) on the dept field, and facet on the dept_exact
field, with
Thank you for this. I will be giving this a try, as I think it would
work well for us.
In the index, we'll store them as
FootwearOutdoorMensFancyHikingBootsWaterproof, and upon getting
it out as a facet, we'll convert that into a ullifootwear/li..
list for display. Then we'll drill down
In general, the type of feature you are interested in is typcially caleld
a PrefixQuery you can acomplish it with the SolrQueryParser using a*
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrQuerySyntax
: example show all docs starting with an a or A, I would just add an
: extra field only containing
: I have read that the default sorting is by the score desc.
: However when I ran the query, I get some erroneous results.
:
: This is the query I ran:
:
: solr include_in_directory_p:t AND active_p:t AND (in_shelves:(0777,1)^100
: OR in_groups:(02343^50 02345^30 abc xyz)); score desc
what
Thanks for the suggestion Chris. I modified SimpleFacets to check for
[f.foo.]facet.field.type==(single|multi)
and the performance has been improved significantly.
On 7/17/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: ...but i don't understand why both checking isTokenized() ...
shouldn't
:
22 matches
Mail list logo
