In case you are going to use core per user take a look to this patch:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/LotsOfCores
Trey-13 wrote:
Hi Matt,
In most cases you are going to be better off going with the userid method
unless you have a very small number of users and a very large number of
how many fields are there in each doc? the binary format just reduces
overhead. it does not touch/compress the payload
2010/1/27 Tim Terlegård tim.terleg...@gmail.com:
I have 3 millon documents, each having 5000 chars. The xml file is
about 15GB. The binary file is also about 15GB.
I was a
I have 6 fields. The text field is the biggest, it contains almost all
of the 5000 chars.
/Tim
2010/1/27 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् noble.p...@corp.aol.com:
how many fields are there in each doc? the binary format just reduces
overhead. it does not touch/compress the payload
2010/1/27 Tim
Good question indeed : I'm waiting as many others I guess for the patch 236
(the collapse thing :) ).
David
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Matthieu Labour matth...@strateer.comwrote:
Hi
quick question:
Is there any release date scheduled for solr 1.5 with all the wonderful
patches
HI all:
I am trying to figure out a way to do the following:
qf=field1^10 field2^20 field^100fq=*:9+OR+(field1:xyz)
*Expected Results:
The above should return me documents where 9 appears in any of the fields
(field1,field2 or field3) OR field1 matches xyz.
*
I know I can
Ashok:
May be this will help:
http://gravi2.blogspot.com/2009/05/solr-wildcards-and-omitnorms.html
~Ravi
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 9:56 PM, ashokcz ashokkumar.gane...@tcs.com wrote:
Hi just looked at the analysis.jsp and found out what it does during index
/
query
Index Analyzer
Hi,
I am having trouble with indexing plurals,
I have the schema with following fields
gender (field) - string (field type) (eg. data Boys)
all (field) - text (field type) - solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory,
solr.SynonymFilterFactory, solr.WordDelimiterFilterFactory,
I have found that my synonyms.txt file had
kids,boys,girls,childrens,children,boys girls,kid,boy,girl
I ran analyzer, somehow it is matching with girl ,, i am not sure whats
happening yet, so i removed ampersand
Kids,boys,girls,childrens,children,boy,girl,kid
I guessed when i add them comma
The binary format just reduces overhead. in your case , all the data
is in the big text field which is not compressed. But overall, the
parsing is a lot faster for the binary format. So you see a perf boost
2010/1/27 Tim Terlegård tim.terleg...@gmail.com:
I have 6 fields. The text field is the
Hi, I have looked on the wiki. Using the CachedSqlEntityProcessor looks like
it was simple. But I am getting no speed benefit and am not sure if I have
even got the syntax correct.
I have a main root entity called 'article'.
And then I have a number of sub entities. One such entity is as such :
Hi again
I finally setup my solr Cluster with tomcat6
The configuration I user is two tomcat servers on the same server in
different ports(ex localhost:8180/solr and
Localhost:8280/solr for testing purposes) with different indexes on
each server and index replication
Hi,
I am trying 2 run a solr server using JettySolrRunner, however i
keep gettin the following exception:
Can't find resource 'solrconfig.xml' in classpath or 'solr/conf/',
cwd=/home/ithurs/shellworkspace/SolrPOC
at
It would be more informative for you to actually post your
schema definitions for the fields in question, along
with your copyfield. The summary in your first
post leaves a lot of questions unanswered...
But a couple of things.
1 beware the SOLR string type. It does NOT tokenize
the input.
I recently had issues with CachedSqlEntityProcessor too, figuring out how to
use the syntax. After a while, I managed to get it working with cacheKey and
cacheLookup. I think this is 1.4 specific though.
It seems you have double WHERE clauses, one in the query and one in the
where attribute.
Try
Can anyone think of a reason why these locks would hang around for more than
2 hours?
I have been monitoring them and they look like they are very short lived.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Ian Connor ian.con...@gmail.com wrote:
We traced one of the lock files, and it had been around for 3
@Marc: Thank you marc. This is a logic we had to implement in the client
application. Will look into applying the patch to replace our own grown logic
@Trey: I have 1000 users per machine. 1 core / user. Each core is 35000
documents. Documents are small...each core goes from 100MB to 1.3GB at
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Matthieu Labour
matthieu_lab...@yahoo.com wrote:
What I am trying to understand is the search/filter algorithm. If I have 1
core with all documents and I search for Paris for userId=123, is lucene
going to first search for all Paris documents and then apply a
I am using
http://localhost:8983/solr/update?commit=trueoverwrite=truecommitWithi
n=10 to update a document. The responseHeader's status is 0.
But when I search the new value, it couldn't be found.
I've not looked at the filtering for quite a while, but if you're
getting lots of similar queries, the filter's caching can play a huge
part in speeding up queries, so even if the first query for paris
was slow, subsequent queries from different users for the same terms
will be sped up
Thanks Didier for your response
And in your opinion, this should be as fast as if I would getCore(userId) --
provided that the core is already open -- and then search for Paris ?
matt
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, didier deshommes dfdes...@gmail.com wrote:
From: didier deshommes dfdes...@gmail.com
I am about to attempt to implementing the SpanQuery in Solr 1.4.
I noticed there is a JIRA to add it in 1.5:
* https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1337
I also noticed a couple of email threads from Grant and Yonik about trying
to implement it such as:
*
As always, I'd try starting with what the user interface (in this
case, syntax) should look like.
It makes sense to add elementary spans first.
{!spannear a=query1 b=query2 slop=10}
Thinking about implementation... what would really magnify the
usefulness of the basic API above is to convert
NewBie Using Solr1.4
I am trying to use a filter query that filters on more than one value for a
given filter ie. filters on field equals value1 or value2
If I enter the following 2 urls in a browser I get back the correct results I
am looking for:
Ummm, you have to provide a *lot* more detail before anyone can help.
Have you used Luke or the admin page to examine your index and determine
that the update did, indeed, work?
Have you tried firing your query with debugQuery=on to see if the fields
searched are the ones you expect?
etc.
Hi,
I have a query where the query matches the document but no highlighting info is
returned. Why? Normally, highlighting returns correctly. This query is
different from others in that it uses a phrase like CR1428-Occ1
Field:
field name=destSpan type=text indexed=true
stored=true
I am using example, only with two fields, id and body. Id is string
field, body is text field.
I use another program to do a http post to update the document, url is
http://localhost:8983/solr/update?commit=trueoverwrite=truecommitWithi
n=10 , the data is
add
doc
field
I am trying to use a filter query that filters on more than
one value for a given filter ie. filters on field
equals value1 or value2
If I enter the following 2 urls in a browser I get back the
correct results I am looking for:
Hi just looked at the analysis.jsp and found out what it
does during index /
query
Index Analyzer
Intel
intel
intel
intel
intel
intel
If the resultant token is intel, then q=inte* should return documents.
What says when you add debugQuery=on to your search url?
And why are you
Note that the query analyzer output is NOT doing query _parsing_, but
rather taking the string you passed and running it through the query
analyzer only. When using the default query parser, Inte* will be a
search for terms that begin with inte. It is odd that you're not
finding it. But
Thanks. I am on 1.4..so maybe that is the problem.
Will try when I get back to work tomorrow.
Thanks
Rolf Johansson-2 wrote:
I recently had issues with CachedSqlEntityProcessor too, figuring out how
to
use the syntax. After a while, I managed to get it working with cacheKey
and
The more I play with values the more I realize highlighting seems to have a
bug. It seems to do with tokenizing.
WILL match and highlight:
Query: TOKEN Data:token
Query: SEARCH Data:searching
Query: abcCR Data: abcCR1428(highlights abcCR)
WILL match and NOT highlight:
Query:
It sounds to me that multiple cores won't scale.. wouldn't you have to
create multiple configurations per each core and does the ranking function
change per user?
I would imagine that the filter method would work better.. the caching is
there and as mentioned earlier would be fast for multiple
It works. I made some mistake in my code.
Jennifer Luo
-Original Message-
From: Jennifer Luo [mailto:jenni...@talenttech.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:57 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: update doc success, but could not find the new value
I am using
Check out Jetty's output or Tomcat's logs. The logging is very verbose and
you can get a clearer picture.
Jennifer Luo said:
I am using example, only with two fields, id and body. Id is string
field, body is text field.
I use another program to do a http post to update the document, url is
Hi -
I'd probably go with a single core on this one, just for ease of operations.
But here are some thoughts:
One advantage I can see to multiple cores, though, would be better idf
calculations. With individual cores, each user only sees the idf for his own
documents. With a single core, the
I recommend getting familiar with the analysis tool included with solr. From
Solr's main admin screen, click on analysis, Check verbose, and enter your
text, and you can see the changes that happen during analysis.
It's really helpful, especially when getting started.
Tom
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010
thanks! that worked.
From: jxkmailbox...@yahoo.com jxkmailbox...@yahoo.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 1:28:07 PM
Subject: filter query error
NewBie Using Solr1.4
I am trying to use a filter query that filters on more than one
thanks! that worked.
From: Ahmet Arslan iori...@yahoo.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wed, January 27, 2010 2:00:32 PM
Subject: Re: filter query error
I am trying to use a filter query that filters on more than
one value for a given filter ie.
I have a field Title and Summary. I've currently not set a default value for
the Summary in my schema, it's just a text field with indexed=true and
stored=true, but not required. When the data is indexed sometimes the
documents don't have a summary so then Solr doesn't index that field.
When
Harsch, Timothy J. (ARC-TI)[PEROT SYSTEMS] wrote:
Hi,
I have a query where the query matches the document but no highlighting info is returned.
Why? Normally, highlighting returns correctly. This query is different from others in
that it uses a phrase like CR1428-Occ1
Field:
field
Linux includes a load-balancer program 'balance'. You set it up at a
third port and configure it to use 'localhost:8180' and
'localhost:8280'.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:06 AM, ZAROGKIKAS,GIORGOS
g.zarogki...@multirama.gr wrote:
Hi again
I finally setup my solr Cluster with tomcat6
Why don't we change the links to have FrontPage explicitly?
Wouldn't it be the easiest fix unless there are numerous
other pages that references the default page w/o FrontPage?
-kuro
-Original Message-
From: Chris Hostetter [mailto:hossman_luc...@fucit.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January
This is kind of an unusual request, what higher-level
problem are you trying to solve here? Because the
field just *isn't there* in the underlying Lucene index
for that document.
I suppose you could index a not there token and just
throw those values out from the response...
Erick
On Wed, Jan
cacheKey and cacheLookup are required attributes .
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:51 AM, KirstyS kirst...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. I am on 1.4..so maybe that is the problem.
Will try when I get back to work tomorrow.
Thanks
Rolf Johansson-2 wrote:
I recently had issues with
Hi
When the same thing can be done using a transformer and a filter which
one will be better? and why?? Please help
On 2010-01-28 03:21, Erick Erickson wrote:
This is kind of an unusual request, what higher-level
problem are you trying to solve here? Because the
field just *isn't there* in the underlying Lucene index
for that document.
I suppose you could index a not there token and just
throw those values
I am planning to use Solr to power search on the site. Our db is mysql and we
need to index some tables in the schema into Solr. Based on my initial research
it appears that I need to write a java program that will create xml documents
(say mydocs.xml) with add command and then use this command
Hi all,
How to remove/disable wildcard search in solr.
I have no requirement of wildcard.
is there any configuration to disable wildcard search in solr.
I am using solrj for searching..
thanks
With regards
Ranveer K Kumar
48 matches
Mail list logo
