Hi all,
While I changing the default schema.xml, I found this attribute where
defined the analyzer...seems it will add some space when multiple fields
appear in document, but what is its effect appear in query and what is the
values mean here?
Thank you,
Vinci
--
View this message in context:
Hi,
Would it be easier if you turn off the highlighting while viewing full
document (but summary highlighting is still available) and use javascript to
do the matching? (As long as we are need highlighting only when looking at
specific document in runtime)
Thank you,
Vinci
Brian Whitman wrote:
Hello Otis,
I have been looking for something similar for Jackrabbit's lucene index,
but I still have some uncertainty about wether I understand correctly
what the patches in SOLR-139 supply:
Do they just retrieve formerly stored fields of a lucene Document,
change some field, and then analyze
Hi Otis,
One question: If the target field is a multi-value field, what will be the
consequence of the update for SOLR-139: overriding or appending?
Thank you,
Vinci
Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
Hi Galen,
See SOLR-139 (this is from memory) issue in JIRA. Doable, but not in Solr
nightlies
Quoting Ryan McKinley [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In general, you need to be very careful when you change the schema
without reindexing. Many changes will break all search, some may be
just fine.
for example, if you change sint to slong anything already indexed as an
sint will be incompatible with the
On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Vinci wrote:
While I changing the default schema.xml, I found this attribute where
defined the analyzer...seems it will add some space when multiple
fields
appear in document, but what is its effect appear in query and what
is the
values mean here?
Suppose
Top often requested feature:
1. Make the option on using the RAMDirectory to hook in Terracotta(
billion(s) of items in an index anyone?..it would be possible using
this.)
2. Make the schema.xml configurable at runtime, not really sure the
best way to address this, because changing the schema
Quoting Jeryl Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2. Make the schema.xml configurable at runtime, not really sure the
best way to address this, because changing the schema would require
re-indexing the documents.
Isn't the best way to address this just to leave it to the persons
that integrate solr
Quoting Daniel Papasian [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Jeryl Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2. Make the schema.xml configurable at runtime, not really sure the
best way to address this, because changing the schema would require
re-indexing the documents.
Isn't the best way to
hi,
If my appserver fails during an update or if I do a planned shutdown
without wanting to commit my changes Solr does not allow it?.
It commits whatever unfinished changes.
Is it by design?
Can I change this behavior?
--Noble
Hello all!
I had a problem this week, and I like to share with you all.
My weblogic server that generate my index hrows its logs in a shared
storage. During my indexing process (SOLR+Lucene), this shared storage
became 100% full, and everything collapsed (all servers that uses this
shared
On Mar 26, 2008, at 4:28 AM, Vinci wrote:
One question: If the target field is a multi-value field, what will
be the
consequence of the update for SOLR-139: overriding or appending?
You can specify when you update a field how that works.
SOLR-139, though, seems a long way from being
I understand that, and that makes sense. But, coming back to the
orginal question:
When performing searches,
I need to be able to search against any combination of sites.
Does anybody have suggestions what the best practice for a scenario
like that would be, considering both
Hi All,
is there a way to get the term frequency per found result back from Solr ?
Greetings,
Tim
Info Support - http://www.infosupport.com
Alle informatie in dit e-mailbericht is onder voorbehoud. Info Support is op
geen enkele wijze aansprakelijk voor vergissingen of onjuistheden in dit
Jeryl Cook wrote:
Top often requested feature:
1. Make the option on using the RAMDirectory to hook in Terracotta(
billion(s) of items in an index anyone?..it would be possible using
this.)
This is noted in: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-465
Out of cueriosity, any sense of
Hello, this is actually a repost of a question posed by Swarag. I don't think
he made the question quite clear, so let me give it a shot. It is known that
Solr has support for index replication, and it has support for index
segmentation. The question is, how would you use the replication tools
I've followed the stop-word discussion with some interest, but I've
yet to find a solution that completely satisfies our needs. I was
wondering if anyone could suggest some other options to try short of a
custom handler or building our own queries (DisMax does such a fine
job generally!).
We are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Daniel Papasian [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Or if you're adding a new field to the schema (perhaps the most common
need for editing schema.xml), you don't need to reindex any documents at
all, right? Unless I'm missing something?
Well, it all depends on if that field
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ्
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If my appserver fails during an update or if I do a planned shutdown
without wanting to commit my changes Solr does not allow it?.
It commits whatever unfinished changes.
Is it by design?
Can I change
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:34 AM, oleg_gnatovskiy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, this is actually a repost of a question posed by Swarag. I don't think
he made the question quite clear, so let me give it a shot. It is known that
Solr has support for index replication, and it has support for
Hi,
While I am testing the Solr schema (1.3 nightly) with example mySolr on
jetty, for the exampledocs and the default schema,
I see the declaration:
field name=features type=text indexed=true stored=true
multiValued=true/
it should be indexed, so I comment this
copyField source=features
Dietrich,
I don't think there are established practices in the open (yet). You could
design your application with a site(s)-shard mapping and then, knowing which
sites are involved in the query, search only the relevant shards. This will be
efficient, but it would require careful management
Hey Ryan, why do you say a Lucene/Solr index served via Terracotta would be
substantially slower?
I often wanted to try Terracotta + Lucene, but... time.
Thanks,
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Ryan McKinley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Makes sense, nut probably overkill for my requirements. I wasn't
really talking 275*20, more likely the total would be something
like four million documents. I was under the assumption that a single
machine, or a simple distributed index, should be able to handle that,
is that wrong?
-ds
On
Ah, that's a very different number. Yes, assuming your docs are web pages, a
single reasonably equipped machine should be able to handle that and a few
dozen QPS.
Otis
--
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Dietrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
What are the odds that I can plop an index created in Solr 1.2 into a
Solr 1.3 and/or Solr trunk install and have things work correctly?
This would be more convenient than reindexing, but I'm wondering how
dangerous it is, and hence how much testing is required.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Chris Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the odds that I can plop an index created in Solr 1.2 into a
Solr 1.3 and/or Solr trunk install and have things work correctly?
Should be relatively high.
I'd never do it on a live index, regardless of what is
It *should* work as a drop in replacement. Check:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/solr/trunk/CHANGES.txt
So you should be good. Note that trunk has a newer verison of lucene,
so the index will be automatically upgraded and you can't go back from
there.
so make sure to backup before
just intuition - haven't tried it, so i'd love to be proved wrong.
Instrumenting Objects and magically passing them around seems like it
would be slower then a tuned approach used in SOLR-303.
It looks like they have a lucene example:
good point:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/solr/trunk/CHANGES.txt?r1=641573r2=641572pathrev=641573
ryan
Chris Harris wrote:
Looks like that can't-go-back bit hasn't made it into CHANGES.txt yet.
Might want to eventually add that somewhere particularly obvious, to
help out people who
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Ryan McKinley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just intuition - haven't tried it, so i'd love to be proved wrong.
Instrumenting Objects and magically passing them around seems like it
would be slower then a tuned approach used in SOLR-303.
Yep, that's my sense too.
i wouldn't call Terracotta approach magic(smile)..., it's being used
quite a bit in many scalable high performing projects...
i personally used Terracotta and Lucene, and it worked but did not try
to cluster it with multiple terracotta(workers) across nodes , and
the Terracotta(master)..just a
: it should be indexed, so I comment this
: copyField source=features dest=text/
:
: However, the search fail. After I clear up the index and, uncomment the
: copyField and commit the document again, the search work again.
:
: That I feeling very confusing as wiki and the schema.xml said this
Hello solr people,
I'm very new to solr to please forgive any misunderstanding on my part.
I am hoping to do a JOIN across documents.
Let me start with the 4 documents:
doc
field name=typepart1/field
field name=keyABC/field
field name=foothis is a test/field
/doc
doc
field
: Top often requested feature:
: 1. Make the option on using the RAMDirectory to hook in Terracotta(
: billion(s) of items in an index anyone?..it would be possible using
: this.)
:
: This is noted in: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-465
...and if people posted comments in the
: I started the indexing with jetty and then I come with some question...
: 1. If I use the example start.jar, what should be my document system layout?
: What is the essential folder?
: solr_jar
: |_start.jar
: |_solrhome
: |_etc
: |_lib
: |_logs
i'm not sure what solr_jar is ... but most of
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Brian Whitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 25, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Chris Harris wrote:
working pretty well, but my testers have
discovered something they find borderline unacceptable. If they search
for
stock market
(with quotes), then
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 10:56 -0700, Vinci wrote:
Hi,
Thank for your reply.
Question for apply xslt: If I use saxon, where should the saxon.jar located
if I using the example jetty server? lib/ inside example/ or outside the
example/?
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/mySolr
...
Typically it's not
Hi Otis,
I skimmed your email. You are indexing book and music titles. Those tend to
be short.
Do you really benefit from removing stop words in the first place? I'd try
keeping all the stop
words and seeing if that has any negative side-effects in your context.
Thanks for your skim
Hi hossman,
Thank you for your reply.
Some question on sorting:
1. Does Solr have a limit, e.g a % or a number to limit the number of
document involved in sorting? or just sort all document?
2. Does the order in parameter 'sort' refer to the sorting order? (sort the
first argument first, then
Hi hossman,
Thank you for your reply, it help a lots...just little more question here:
hossman wrote:
: it should be indexed, so I comment this
: copyField source=features dest=text/
:
: However, the search fail. After I clear up the index and, uncomment the
: copyField and commit
Hi Erik,
Thank you for your help. This is useful.
Some follow up questions,
Erik Hatcher wrote:
..The value you set that gap to depends on whether you'll
be using sloppy phrase queries, and how sloppy they'll be and whether
you desire matching across field instances.
1. If I
On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:34 PM, A.Z wrote:
As I understand, after passing facets to Solr, one must
manually add facet results to search to narrow the search.
ex. i search for foo bar and click some facet. must i now
search for 'foo bar facet:value' ? Must I include + signs?
I'm using
On Mar 26, 2008, at 10:15 PM, Vinci wrote:
Erik Hatcher wrote:
..The value you set that gap to depends on whether you'll
be using sloppy phrase queries, and how sloppy they'll be and whether
you desire matching across field instances.
1. If I doesn't care the sloppy queries, I just set a
In fact, 55m records works fine in Solr; assuming they are small records.
The problem is that the index files wind up in the tens of gigabytes. The
logistics of doing backups, snapping to query servers, etc. is what makes
this index unwieldy, and why multiple shards are useful.
Lance
We use two fields, one with and one without stopwords. The exact
field has a higher boost than the other. That works pretty well.
It helps to have an automated relevance test when tuning the boost
(and other things). I extracted queries and clicks from the logs
for a couple of months. Not
Can I make an API call to remove the stale indexsearcher so that the
documents do not get committed?
Basically what I need is a 'rollback' feature
--Noble
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ्
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:11 AM, Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ्
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can I make an API call to remove the stale indexsearcher so that the
documents do not get committed?
Basically what I need is a 'rollback' feature
This should be possible when Solr starts using Lucene's
48 matches
Mail list logo
