thanks, that's what I had thought. Wasn't sure if there was a benefit
either way.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the most appropriate way to configure Solr when deploying
I've seen in the solr faceting overview that it is possible to sort
either by count or lexicographically, but is there a way to sort so
the lowest counts come back first?
Sekiguchi k...@r.email.ne.jp wrote:
(11/12/29 5:50), Jamie Johnson wrote:
I've seen in the solr faceting overview that it is possible to sort
either by count or lexicographically, but is there a way to sort so
the lowest counts come back first?
As far as I know, no. What is your use case?
koji
Thanks Hoss, I'll take a look at this and see if i can understand this.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: I've seen in the solr faceting overview that it is possible to sort
: either by count or lexicographically, but is there a way to sort so
I'm trying to figure out a way to execute a query which would allow me
to say there were x documents over this period of time with type a, y
documents over the same period of time with type b and z documents
over the same period of time with type c. I was thinking of doing
this using range
I'm not sure that will give me what I want, most likely because I was
clear what I'm looking for. I would like to take this information and
populate a chart so you could see how many documents were created over
time of a particular type. So basically I need the range queries so I
can populate
I'm trying to determine when it is appropriate to use the
solr.ReversedWildcardFilterFactory, specifically if I have a field
content of type text (from default schema) which I want to be able to
search with leading wildcards do I need to index this information into
both a text field and a text_rev
SaaS for Solr -
http://sematext.com/spm/solr-performance-monitoring/index.html
From: Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: Cluster Resizing question
Is this the JIRA that I should
be throw away. Thus the reason
I'd like to understand what the plans are for this in Solr and
possibly start contributing to this development, assuming it meets my
timelines.
Any thoughts/comments are greatly appreciated.
On 1/25/12, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Otis. I have been
I just want to verify some of the features in regards to SolrCloud
that are now on Trunk
documents added to the cluster are automatically distributed amongst
the available shards (I had seen that Yonik had ported the Murmur
hash, but I didn't see that on trunk, what is being used and where can
I
, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I just want to verify some of the features in regards to SolrCloud
that are now on Trunk
documents added to the cluster are automatically distributed amongst
the available
.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Second question, I know there are discussion about storing the shard
assignments in ZK (i.e. shard 1 is responsible for hashed values
between 0
I'd like to use both the ReversedWildcardFilterFactory and
PorterStemFilterFactory on a text field that I have, I'd like to avoid
stemming the reversed fields and would also like to avoid reversing
the stemmed fields. My original thought was to have the
ReversedWildcardFilterFactory higher in the
Looking closer I think I asked the wrong question, please disregard and I
will start a new chain with that question
On Friday, February 3, 2012, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to have multiple index analysis chains on a single field?
I was recently walking through schema.xml and noticed triedate vs date
and a note that triedate should be considered instead. I believe I
understand the basic principle behind triedate but is there an
analysis that exists which shows how much bigger an index would be if
triedate were used vs
Mark,
is the recommendation now to have each solr instance be a separate core in
solr cloud? I had thought that the core name was by default the collection
name? Or are you saying that although they have the same name they are
separate because they are in different JVMs?
On Wednesday, February 8,
instances per machine
On Wednesday, February 8, 2012, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 8, 2012, at 9:52 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
In solr cloud what is a better approach / use of resources having
multiple
cores on a single instance or multiple instances with a single core? What
So I think the change I made should still be done, but the issue was
on my end missing the '' surrounding the url. After changing that
things are moving again.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
This morning I pulled the latest code from trunk and was trying
I'm looking at the latest code on trunk and it seems as if the
zookeeper view does not work. When trying to access the information I
get the following in the log
2012-02-09 10:28:49.030:WARN::/solr/zookeeper.jsp
java.lang.NullPointerException
at
done
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3117
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 9, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
So I think the change I made should still be done
If you create a JIRA issue, I'd be happy to pop it in.
- Mark
for this Solr
Core. Please try connecting to an alternate zookeeper address.}
Does the new interface support multiple cores? Should the old
interface require that defaultCoreName be set?
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking at the latest code on trunk
I just ran a test with a very modest cluster (exactly the same as
http://outerthought.org/blog/491-ot.html). I then indexed 10,000
documents into the cluster. From what I can tell everything worked
properly but I'm seeing the following errors in the logs. I'm
randomly choosing the solr instance
:
Is that the entire stack trace - no other exception logged?
On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
I just ran a test with a very modest cluster (exactly the same as
http://outerthought.org/blog/491-ot.html). I then indexed 10,000
documents into the cluster. From what I can tell
per SOLR-2765 we can add roles to specific cores such that it's
possible to give custom roles to solr instances, is it possible to
specify this when adding a core through curl
'http://host:port/solr/admin/cores...'?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2765
:30 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I have the need to take user input and index it in a unique fashion,
essentially the value is some string (say abcdefghijk) and needs to
be converted into a set of tokens (say 1 2 3 4). I am currently have
implemented a custom TokenFilter to do
PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Robert, I'll take a look there. Does it sound like I'm on the
right the right track with what I'm implementing, in other words is a
TokenFilter appropriate or is there something else that would be a
better fit for what I've described?
I can't
field:1 OR field:2 OR field:3 OR field:4. Is
there something in the tokenizer that needs to be set for this to
generate this type of query or is it something in the query parser?
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2
Think I figured it out, the tokens just needed the same position attribute.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Robert, worked perfect for the index side of the house. Now on
the query side I have a similar Tokenizer, but it's not operating
quite
I know that the latest Solr Cloud doesn't use standard replication but
I have a question about how it appears to be working. I currently
have the following cluster state
{collection1:{
slice1:{
JamiesMac.local:8501_solr_slice1_shard1:{
shard_id:slice1,
state:active,
, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
I know that the latest Solr Cloud doesn't use standard replication but
I have a question about how it appears to be working. I currently
have the following cluster state
{collection1:{
slice1:{
JamiesMac.local:8501_solr_slice1_shard1
Was there a fix recently to address sorting issues for Dates in solr
cloud? On my cluster I have a date field which when I sort across the
cluster I get incorrect order executing the following query I get
solr/select?distrib=trueq=paulsort=datetime_dt%20descfl=datetime_dt
result name=response
that the issue is on my end, will report shortly.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Was there a fix recently to address sorting issues for Dates in solr
cloud? On my cluster I have a date
here
because for the life of me I can't figure out what is causing this.
I'm doing all of the filtering inside of the process method in my
custom SearchComponent.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an snapshot of the solrcloud branch from somewhere
work fine, but this isn't what appears to be
happening. For queries that are not distributed I don't see this
issue, only for distributed queries.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like everything works fine without my custom component, which
, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
So looking at query component it appears to sort the entire doc list
at the end of process, my component is defined after this query so the
doclist that I get should be sorted, right? To me this should mean
that I can remove items
don't
understand why it worked, what exactly is this doing?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to look at the pseudo fields you're talking about (don't
really understand it right now), but need to get something working in
the short term. How do I go
Sorry for pinging this again, is more information needed on this? I
can provide more details but am not sure what to provide.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I shut down the full solr instance.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Mark Miller
, or active
in zookeeper?
On Feb 10, 2012, at 4:48 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Sorry for pinging this again, is more information needed on this? I
can provide more details but am not sure what to provide.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, I shut down
:8501/solr
how'd you resolve this issue?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 10, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
jamiesmac
Another note:
Have no idea if this is involved, but when I do tests with my linux box and
mac I run
, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
how'd you resolve this issue?
I was basing my guess on seeing JamiesMac.local and jamiesmac in your
first cluster state dump - your latest doesn't seem to mismatch like that
though.
- Mark Miller
lucidimagination.com
I didn't see anything in the logs, would it be an error?
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 11, 2012, at 3:08 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
I wiped the zk and started over (when I switch networks I get
different host names and honestly haven't dug
for the recover keyword and see if there
are any interesting bits around that.
Meanwhile, I have dug up a couple issues around recovery and committed fixes
to trunk - still playing around...
On Feb 11, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
I didn't see anything in the logs, would
-data
-slice1_shard2
-data
if it matters I'm running everything from localhost, zk and the solr shards
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Sami Siren ssi...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you have unique dataDir for each instance?
13.2.2012 14.30 Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com kirjoitti:
Has there been any success in replicating this? I'm wondering if it
could be something with my setup that is causing the issue...
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I have the following layout on the FS
./bootstrap.sh
./example (standard example
).
- Mark
On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Has there been any success in replicating this? I'm wondering if it
could be something with my setup that is causing the issue...
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I have the following
to determine that.
I'm investigating more and working on a test + fix. I'll file a JIRA issue
soon as well.
- Mark
On Feb 14, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Thanks Mark, not a huge rush, just me trying to get to use the latest
stuff on our project.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:53 AM
around the recovery.
I'll keep working on tests in the meantime.
- Mark
On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Sounds good, if I pull the latest from trunk and rerun will that be
useful or were you able to duplicate my issue now?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Mark Miller
)
at
org.apache.solr.cloud.RecoveryStrategy.replicate(RecoveryStrategy.java:120)
at org.apache.solr.cloud.RecoveryStrategy.run(RecoveryStrategy.java:208)
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Doing so now, will let you know if I continue to see the same issues
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012
way of doing this?
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to be able to facet based on the time of
day items are purchased across a date span. I was hoping that I could
that
explicitly, though). If the unique ID is included you could never reach
that score.
Just my 2 cents...
Chantal
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 07:27 +0100, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Is there anyway with MLT to say get similar based on all fields or is
it always a requirement to specify the fields?
impact.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would if I indexed the time information separately. Which
was my original thought, but I was hoping to store this in one field
instead of 2. So my idea was I'd store the time portion as as a
number
Ok, great. Just wanted to make sure someone was aware. Thanks for
looking into this.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:57 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Not sure if this is
expected or not.
Nope - should be already resolved
I am attempting to execute a query with the following parameters
q=*:*
distrib=true
facet=true
facet.limit=10
facet.field=manu
f.manu.facet.mincount=1
f.manu.facet.limit=10
f.manu.facet.sort=index
rows=10
When doing this I get the following exception
null
please ignore this, it has nothing to do with the faceting component.
I was able to disable a custom component that I had and it worked
perfectly fine.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I am attempting to execute a query with the following parameters
q
experience. :)
Regards,
Em
Am 16.02.2012 19:23, schrieb Jamie Johnson:
please ignore this, it has nothing to do with the faceting component.
I was able to disable a custom component that I had and it worked
perfectly fine.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote
at 3:05 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
still digging ;) Once I figure it out I'll be happy to share.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Em mailformailingli...@yahoo.de wrote:
Hi Jamie,
nice to hear.
Maybe you can share in what kind of bug you ran, so that other
developers
,
node_name:JamiesMac.local:8502_solr,
base_url:http://JamiesMac.local:8502/solr
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
Yup - deletes are fine.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
With solr-2358 being committed to trunk do deletes
and having looked at this closer, shouldn't the down node not be
marked as active when I stop that solr instance?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Mark. I'm still seeing some issues while indexing though. I
have the same setup describe in my
Thanks Sami, so long at it's expected ;)
In regards to the replication not working the way I think it should,
am I missing something or is it simply not working the way I think?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Sami Siren ssi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Jamie Johnson
I stop the indexing, stop the shard, then start indexing again. So
shouldn't need Yonik's latest fix? In regards to how far out of sync,
it's completely out of sync, meaning index 100 documents to the
cluster (40 on shard1 60 on shard2) then stop the instance, index 100
more, when I bring the
)
at
org.mortbay.jetty.bio.SocketConnector$Connection.run(SocketConnector.java:228)
at
org.mortbay.thread.QueuedThreadPool$PoolThread.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:582)
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I stop the indexing, stop the shard, then start indexing
when a delete happened and then comes back up,
that node still listed the id I deleted. Is this currently supported?
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm seeing the following
Yes, still seeing that. Master has 8 items, replica has 9. So the
delete didn't seem to work when the node was down.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Something that didn't
?
On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Yes, still seeing that. Master has 8 items, replica has 9. So the
delete didn't seem to work when the node was down.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Jamie
yes committing in the mix.
id field is a UUID.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
You are committing in that mix right?
On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
This was with the cloud-dev solrcloud-start.sh script (after that I've
used
I know everyone is busy, but I was wondering if anyone had found
anything with this? Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong
would be greatly appreciated.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
id
Sami nor I have replicated these results so far.
On Feb 22, 2012, at 8:56 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
I know everyone is busy, but I was wondering if anyone had found
anything with this? Any suggestions on what I could be doing wrong
would be greatly appreciated.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 4:08
I'm pulling the latest now. Once I've rebuilt and setup the test I'll
forward all the logs on to you. Again thanks for looking into this.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 22, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Perhaps if you could give me
looks good. Again thanks for
helping out with this.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pulling the latest now. Once I've rebuilt and setup the test I'll
forward all the logs on to you. Again thanks for looking into this.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:20
and feedback is invaluable
though.
On Feb 24, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Pulling the latest version seems to have fixed whatever issue that
previously existed so everything appears to be working properly. I'm
seeing updates make it to the downed server once it recovers
I'm trying to upgrade an application I have from an old snapshot of
solr to the latest stable trunk and see that the constructor for
Filter has changed, specifically there is another parameter named
acceptDocs, the API says the following
acceptDocs - Bits that represent the allowable docs to
; at
the top?
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to upgrade an application I have from an old snapshot of
solr to the latest stable trunk and see that the constructor for
Filter
I just got done reading
http://www.searchworkings.org/blog/-/blogs/uwe-says%3A-is-your-reader-atomic
and was specifically interested in the following line
Unfortunately, Apache Solr still uses this horrible code in a lot of
places, leaving us with a major piece of work undone. Major parts of
Thanks Mark. I'll pull the latest trunk today and run with that.
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any outstanding issues that I should be aware of?
Not that I know of - we where trying to track down an issue around peer
sync recovery
perfect, thanks Yonik!
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
How large will the transaction log grow, and how long should it be kept
around?
We keep around enough logs
Thanks for clarifying Yonik.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, Apache Solr still uses this horrible code in a lot of
places, leaving us with a major piece
expanding/reducing the cluster.
Are there any ideas or progress in this direction, be it in a branch or
in JIRA issues ?
Andre
Jamie Johnson wrote:
The case is actually anytime you need to add another shard. With the
current implementation if you need to add a new shard the current
That is correct, the cloud does not currently elastically expand.
Essentially when you first start up you define something like
numShards, once numShards is reached all else goes in as replicas. If
you manually specify the shards using the create core commands you can
define the layout however
rereading your email, perhaps this doesn't answer the question though.
Can you provide your solr.xml so we can get a better idea of your
configuration?
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
That is correct, the cloud does not currently elastically expand
Mark,
Is there a ticket around doing this? If the work/design was written
down somewhere the community might have a better idea of how exactly
we could help.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
where
On a previous version of a solr snapshot we had a custom component
which did the following
boolean fsv =
req.getParams().getBool(ResponseBuilder.FIELD_SORT_VALUES,false);
if(fsv){
NamedList sortVals = (NamedList)
rsp.getValues().get(sort_values);
I suppose it would help if I populated the list I try to remove things
fromI believe it's working once I did that. Now that this is out
there, is there a better way to do something like this?
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
On a previous version
If I have a multivalued field with values as follows
arr name=clothingstrblack pants/strstrwhite shirt/str/arr
and I do a query against that field with highlighting enabled as follows
/select?hl.fl=clothingrows=5q=clothing:black clothing:shirthl=onindent=true
I thought I would see the
class=solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory/
filter class=solr.KeywordMarkerFilterFactory
protected=protwords.txt/
filter class=solr.PorterStemFilterFactory/
/analyzer
/fieldType
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
If I have a multivalued field
so my mistake on this, I was not setting hl.snippets so the default
value of 1 was being used. If I change to 2 I get the expected
result.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
as an FYI I tried this with the standard highlighter and got the same
result
Thanks the KeywordMarkerFilterFactory seems to be what I was looking
for. I'm still wondering about keeping the unstemmed word as a token
though. While I know that this would increase the index size slightly
I wonder what the negative of doing such a thing would be? Just seems
less destructive
I'd be very interested to see how you did this if it is available. Does
this seem like something useful to the community at large?
On Thursday, March 8, 2012, Ahmet Arslan iori...@yahoo.com wrote:
Thanks the KeywordMarkerFilterFactory
seems to be what I was looking
for. I'm still wondering
Ok, so I'm digging through the code and I noticed in
org.apache.lucene.analysis.synonym.SynonymFilter there are mentions of
a keepOrig attribute. Doing some googling led me to
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters which
speaks of an attribute preserveOriginal=1 on
, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, so I'm digging through the code and I noticed in
org.apache.lucene.analysis.synonym.SynonymFilter there are mentions of
a keepOrig attribute. Doing some googling led me to
http://wiki.apache.org/solr
attribute from WordDelimeterFilterFactory, can anyone
provide guidance on that?
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
Further digging leads me to believe this is not the case. The Synonym
Filter supports this, but the Stemming Filter does not.
Ahmet,
Would you
discussion. I'd be really interested in
comments/thoughts on this.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3231
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
So I've thrown something together fairly quickly which is based on
what Ahmet had sent that I believe
, February 9, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:09 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
To get this to work I had to modify my solr.xml to add a
defaultCoreName, then everything worked fine on the old interface
(/solr/admin). The new interface was still unhappy and looking
Is there a way to provide an additional query constraint to the MLT
component? My particular use case is I want to get similar documents,
but limit them to the documents a user can actually see based on some
authorization query. Is this currently possible?
Great, so to be clear I would execute the following correct?
http://localhost:8983/solr/admin/cores?action=REQUESTRECOVERYcore=slice1_shard2
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:03 PM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
Is there a way to force
I'm curious if anyone tell me how Solr/Lucene performs in a situation
where you have 100,000 documents each with 100 tokens vs having
1,000,000 documents each with 10 tokens. Should I expect the
performance to be the same? Any information would be greatly
appreciated.
search depends from
size of search result: numFound*log(start+rows), but from size of index.
Regards
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm curious if anyone tell me how Solr/Lucene performs in a situation
where you have 100,000 documents each with 100
I am not currently running into memory issues, but I was wondering if
anyone could explain to me Solrs memory usage? What does Solr
actually store in memory? What are some of the largest memory
consumers (i.e. faceting, sorting, etc). Is the best way to start
addressing questions like this to
I'm trying to figure out how it's possible for 2 solr instances (1
which is leader 1 is replica) to be out of sync. I've done commits to
the solr instances, forced replication but still the solr instances
have different info. The relevant snippet from my clusterstate.json
is listed below.
or when you are forcing
replication. Logs around both would be helpful.
Also the doc counts for each shard?
On Mar 20, 2012, at 10:16 AM, Jamie Johnson wrote:
I'm trying to figure out how it's possible for 2 solr instances (1
which is leader 1 is replica) to be out of sync. I've done commits
ok, with my custom component out of the picture I still have the same
issue. Specifically, when sorting by score on a leader and replica I
am getting different doc orderings. Is this something anyone has
seen?
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
DocCounts
1 - 100 of 510 matches
Mail list logo
