On 8/24/07, Simon Peter Nicholls [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just noticed that for ISO 2 character country codes such as BE
and IT, my queries are not working as expected.
The field is being stored as country_t, dynamically from acts_as_solr
v0.9, as follows (from schema.xml):
On 9/2/07, michael ravits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is the field definition:
field name=msgid type=slong indexed=true stored=true
required=true /
holds message id's, values range from 0 to 127132531
can I disable this cache?
No, sorting wouldn't work without it.
The cache structure
On 9/3/07, Marcus Stratmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you could live with a cap of 2B on message id, switching to type
int would decrease the memory usage to 4 bytes per doc (presumably
you don't need range queries?)
I haven't found exact definitions of the fieldTypes anywhere. Does
Can you provide the full query response (with debugging output)?
-Yonik
On 9/3/07, Jérôme Etévé [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all
I've got a problem here with the '-field:[* TO *]' syntax. It doesn't
seem to work as expected
You could index both a compound field and the components separately.
This could be simplified by sending the value in once as the compound format:
review,1 Jan 2007
revision, 2 Jan 200
And then use a copyField with a regex tokenizer to extract and index
the date into a separate field. You
On 9/6/07, Brian Carmalt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try it with title.encode('utf-8').
As in: kw =
{'id':'12','title':title.encode('utf-8'),'system':'plone','url':'http://www.google.de'}
It seems like the client library should be responsible for encoding,
not the user.
So try changing
On 9/6/07, Matthew Runo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing is that a new searcher is not opened if I look in the
stats.jsp page. The index version never changes.
The index version is read from the index... hence if the lucene index
doesn't change (even if a ew snapshot was taken), the version
On 9/6/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all.
I'm trying to construct a query that in pseudo-code would read
like this:
field != ''
I'm finding it difficult to write this as a solr query, though.
Stuff like:
NOT field:()
doesn't seem to do the trick.
any ideas?
perhaps
On 9/6/07, Jae Joo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have 13 millions and have facets by states (50). If there is a mechasim to
chche, I may get faster result back.
How fast are you getting results back with standard field faceting
(facet.field=state)?
On 9/7/07, Lance Norskog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the page http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateXmlMessages
We find:
Optional attributes on doc
* boost = float - default is 1.0 (See Lucene docs for
definition of boost.)
* NOTE: make sure norms
On 9/7/07, Lance Norskog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It appears that DirectUpdateHandler2.java does not actually implement the
parameters that control whether to override existing documents.
It's been proposed that most of these be deprecated anyway and
replaced with a simple overwrite=true/false.
On 9/7/07, Lance Norskog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I'm just doing standard overwriting. It just took a little digging to be
able to do it :)
Overwriting is the default... you shouldn't have to do specify
anything extra when indexing the document.
-Yonik
On 9/10/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing a weird problem with sorting that I can't figure out.
I have a query that uses two fields -- a source column and a
date column. I search on the source and I sort by the date
descending.
What I'm seeing is that depending on the
On 9/10/07, Robin Bonin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had created a new index over the weekend, and the final size was a
few hundred megs.
I just checked and now the index folder is up to 1.7 Gig. Is this due
to results being cached? can I set a limit to how large the index will
grow? is there
if you credit contributions, but if so please include
OCLC.
Seems only fair since I did this on their dime :)
Cheers!
harry
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonik
Seeley
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:59 PM
To: solr
If you aren't using index-time document boosting, or field boosting
for that field specifically, then set omitNorms=true for that field
in the schema, shut down solr, completely remove the index, and then
re-index.
The norms for each field consist of the index-time boost multiplied by
the length
If you want to see what performance will be like on the next release,
you could try upgrading Solr's internal version of lucene to trunk
(current dev version)... there have been some fantastic improvements
in indexing speed.
For query speed/throughput, Solr 1.2 or trunk should do fine.
-Yonik
On 9/16/07, Ryan McKinley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should the EdgeNGramFilter use the same term position for the ngrams
within a single token?
It feels like that is the right approach.
I don't see value in having them sequential, and I can think of uses
for having them overlap.
-Yonik
On 9/18/07, Amitha Talasila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 65% of the relevance can be computed while indexing the document and
posted as a field. But the keyword match is a run time score .Is there any
way of getting the relevance score as a combination of this 65% and 35%?
A FunctionQuery
On 9/18/07, Jon Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reflection could be used to look up and invoke the constructor with
appropriately-typed arguments. If we assume only primitive types
and ValueSources are used, I don't think it would be too hard to craft
a drop-in replacement that works with
On 9/19/07, Norberto Meijome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:46:53 -0400
Ryan McKinley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stu is referring to Federated Search - where each index has some of the
It really should be Distributed Search I think (my mistake... I
started out calling it
On 9/19/07, Adam Goldband [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone else using this, and finding it not working in Solr 1.2? Since
we've got an automated release process, I really need to be able to have
the appserver not see itself as done warming up until the firstSearcher
is ready to go... but with
On 9/19/07, Laurent Hoss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We want to (mis)use facet search to get the number of (unique) field
values appearing in a document resultset.
We have paging of facets, so just like normal search results, it does
make sense to list the total number of facets matching.
The
On 9/19/07, Norberto Meijome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe I got this wrong...but isn't this what mapreduce is meant to deal with?
Not really... you could force a *lot* of different problems into
map-reduce (that's sort of the point... being able to automatically
parallelize a lot of different
On 9/19/07, Pieter Berkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I'd like to be able to
analyze documents more intelligently to recognize phrase keywords such as
open source, Microsoft Office, Bill Gates rather than splitting each
word into separate tokens (the field is never used in search queries
On 9/20/07, Walter Ferrara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just wondering, as this cached object could be (theoretically)
pretty big, do I need to be aware of some OOM? I know that FieldCache
use weakmaps, so I presume the cached array for the older reader(s) will
be gc-ed when the reader is no
On 9/20/07, Walter Ferrara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have an index with several fields, but just one stored: ID (string,
unique).
I need to access that ID field for each of the tops nodes docs in my
results (this is done inside a handler I wrote), code looks like:
Hits hits =
On 9/21/07, Amitha Talasila [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But when we make a facet query like,
http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=ipodrows=0facet=truefacet.limit=-1fac
et.query=weight:{0m TO 100m}, the facet count is coming as 0.We are indexing
it as a string field because if the user searches for
On 9/21/07, Pieter Berkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yonik: This is the approach I had in mind, will it still work if I put the
SynonymFilter after the word-delimiter filter in the schema config?
SynonymFilter doesn't currently have the capability to handle multiple
tokens at the same position in
On 9/25/07, Ben Shlomo, Yatir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I can delete multiple docs with the following:
deletequerymediaId:(6720 OR 6721 OR )/query/delete
My question is can I do something like this?
deletequerylanguageId:123 AND manufacturer:456 /query/delete
(It does not work for
On 9/26/07, Urvashi Gadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to create my own application using SOLR and while trying to
index my data i get
Server returned HTTP response code: 400 for URL:
http://localhost:8983/solr/update or
Server returned HTTP response code: 500 for URL:
On 9/27/07, Pieter Berkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While in theory -URL: should be valid syntax, the Lucene query parser
doesn't accept it and throws a ParseException.
I don't have time to work on that now, but I did just open a bug:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1006
-Yonik
On 9/27/07, Jae Joo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do need to move the index files, but have a concerns any potential problem
including performance?
Do I have to keep the original document for querying?
I assume you posted XML documents in Solr XML format (like adddoc...)?
If so, that is just an
On 9/27/07, Yonik Seeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/27/07, Pieter Berkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While in theory -URL: should be valid syntax, the Lucene query parser
doesn't accept it and throws a ParseException.
I don't have time to work on that now,
OK, I lied :-) It was simple
On 9/27/07, Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using something like this, how would the custom SortComparatorSource
get a parameter from the request to use in sorting calculations?
perhaps hook in via function query:
dist(10.4,20.2,geoloc)
And either manipulate the score with that and
If it were just a couple of colors, you could have a separate field
for each color and then index the percent in that field.
black:70
grey:20
and then you could use a function query to influence the score (or you
could sort by the color percent).
However, this doesn't scale well to a large
On 9/28/07, Brian Whitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For some reason sending a
commit/ is not refreshing the index
It should... are there any errors in the logs? do you see the commit
in the logs?
Check the stats page to see info about when the current searcher was
last opened too.
-Yonik
On 9/28/07, Robert Purdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering if anyone could help me, I just completed a full index of my
data (about 4 million documents) and noticed that when I was first setting
up the schema I set the version number to 1.2 thinking that solr 1.2 uses
schema version
On 9/28/07, Clay Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i'm late for dinner out, so i'm just attaching it here.
Most attachments are stripped :-)
-Yonik
On 10/1/07, Maximilian Hütter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I search using an English term, I get results but the Japanese is
not encoded correctly in the response. (although it is UTF-8 encoded)
One quick thing to try is the python writer (wt=python) to see the
actual unicode values of what
On 10/1/07, Robert Purdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there, I am having some major CPU performance problems with heavy user
load with solr 1.2. I currently have approximately 4 million documents in
the index and I am doing some pretty heavy faceting on multi-valued columns.
I know that doing
On 10/1/07, Maximilian Hütter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yonik Seeley schrieb:
On 10/1/07, Maximilian Hütter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I search using an English term, I get results but the Japanese is
not encoded correctly in the response. (although it is UTF-8 encoded)
One quick
On 10/2/07, Maximilian Hütter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you sure, they are wrong in the index?
It's not an issue with Jetty output encoding since the python writer
takes the string and converts it to ascii before that. Since Solr
does no charset encoding itself on output, that must mean that
On 10/3/07, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I was wondering if there was a easy way to give solr a list of things
and finding out which have entries.
ie I pass it a list
Bill Clinton
George Bush
Mary Papas
(and possibly 20 others)
to a solr index which contains news articles
On 10/5/07, Mike Klaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The other option is to use a function query on the value stored in a
field (which could represent a range of 'badness'). This can be used
directly in the dismax handler using the bf (boost function) query
parameter.
In the near future, you can
On 10/6/07, Frederik M. Kraus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like we ran into a urldecode problem when having certain query
strings. This is what happens:
Client: Jeffrey's Bay - Jeffrey%26%2339%3Bs+Bay (php 5.2
urlencode/rawurlencode)
It looks like the client is doing XML escaping as
On 10/8/07, Daniel Alheiros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm about to deploy SOLR in a production environment
Cool, can you share exactly what it will be used for?
and so far I'm a bit
concerned about availability.
I have a system that is responsible for fetching data from a database and
then
On 10/8/07, Daniel Alheiros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I believe I can live with some staleness at certain moments, but it's
not good as users are supposed to need it 24x7. So the common practice is to
make one of the slaves as the new master and switch things over to it and
after the
On 10/8/07, Daniel Alheiros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, is there any exception thrown in case the index get corrupted (if it's
not caused by OOM and the JVM crashes)? The document uniqueness SOLR offers
is one of the many reasons I'm using it and should be excellent to know when
it's gone.
On 10/8/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you taken a thread dump to see what is going on?
We can't do it b/c during the unresponsive time we can't access
the admin site (/solr/admin) at all. I don't know how to do a
thread dump via the command line
kill -3
On 10/8/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The logs show nothing but regular activity. We do a tail -f
on the logfile and we can read it during the unresponsive period
and we don't see any errors.
You don't see log entries for requests until after they complete.
When a server becomes
On 10/8/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you see any requests that took a really long time to finish?
The requests that take a long time to finish are just simple
queries. And the same queries run at a later time come back
much faster.
Our logs contain 99% inserts and 1%
On 10/9/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run a faceted query against a very large index on a
regular schedule. Every now and then the query throws
an out of heap space error, and we're sunk.
So, naturally we increased the heap size and things worked
well for a while and then the
On 10/9/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is only used during the term enumeration method of
faceting (facet.field type faceting on multi-valued or
full-text fields).
What if I'm faceting on just a plain String field? It's
not full-text, and I don't have multiValued set for
On 10/10/07, Mike Klaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you tried setting multivalued=true without reindexing? I'm not
sure, but I think it will work.
Yes, that will work fine.
One thing that will change is the response format for stored fields
arr name=foostrval1/str/arr
instead of
str
On 10/10/07, Jason Rennie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're using solr 1.2 and a nightly build of the solrj client code. We very
occasionally see things like this:
org.apache.solr.client.solrj.SolrServerException: Error executing query
at
On 10/11/07, Mike Klaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing some interesting behaviour when doing benchmarks of query
and facet performance. Note that the query cache is disabled, and
the index is entirely in the OS disk cache. filterCache is fully
primed.
Often when repeatedly measuring
On 10/11/07, BrendanD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, we have some huge performance issues with non-cached queries. So doing a
commit is very expensive for us. We have our autowarm count for our
filterCache and queryResultCache both set to 4096. But I don't think that's
near high enough. We did
On 10/11/07, BrendanD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a difference in the performance for the following 2 variations on
query syntax? The first query was a response from Solr by using a single fq
parameter in the URL. The second query was a response from Solr by using
separate fq parameter
On 10/13/07, Lance Norskog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The sample schema in Solr 1.2 supplies two variants of integers, longs,
floats, doubles. One variant is sortable and one is not.
What is the point of having both? Why would I choose the non-sorting
variants? Do they store fewer bytes per
On 10/15/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to comment-out a filter in my schema.xml, specifically
the solr.EnglishPorterFilterFactory filter.
I want to know -- will this cause me to have to re-build my
index? Or will a restart of SOLR get the job done?
Yes, you will need to
On 10/17/07, Maximilian Hütter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also found this:
Controls the maximum number of terms that can be added to a Field for a
given Document, thereby truncating the document. Increase this number if
large documents are expected. However, setting this value too high may
On 10/19/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(it doesn't matter that parseSort
returns null when the sort string is just score ... SolrIndexSearcher
recognizes a null Sort as being the default sort by score)
Yep... FYI, I did this early on specifically because no sort and
score desc
On 10/22/07, Walter Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
lst name=appends
str name=fq(pushstatus:A AND (type:movie OR type:person))/str
/lst
/requestHandler
Perhaps try setting up a static warming query for this filter and any
other common filters?
Also look for correlations
On 10/22/07, Erik Hatcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps this is a case that Solr could address with a third analyzer
configuration (it already has query, and index differentiation)
that could be incorporated for wildcard queries. Thoughts on that?
I've actually thought about it
On 10/19/07, Maximilian Hütter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yonik Seeley schrieb:
On 10/17/07, Maximilian Hütter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also found this:
Controls the maximum number of terms that can be added to a Field for a
given Document, thereby truncating the document. Increase
On 10/23/07, Maximilian Hütter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
??? maxFieldLength only applies to the number of tokens indexed. You
will always get the complete field back if it's stored, regardless of
what maxFieldLength is.
What I meant was, that it is different from just having a field with
On 10/24/07, Alf Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yonik Seeley wrote:
Could you perhaps index the captions as
#1 this is the first caption
#2 this is the second caption
And then when just look for #n in the highlighted results?
For display, you could also strip out the #n
On 10/24/07, Alf Eaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to use the bf parameter to boost a dismax query based on the value
of a certain (integer) field. The trouble is that for some of the documents
this field is empty (rather than zero), which means that there's an error
when using the
On 10/24/07, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I'm in the middle of bringing up a new solr server and am using the
trunk. (where I was using an earlier nightly release of about 2-3 weeks
ago on my old server)
now, when I do a search for 日本 (japan) it used to show the kanji in
the q
On 10/24/07, Norskog, Lance [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am creating a filter that is never used. Here is the query sequence:
q=*:*fq=contentid:00*start=0rows=200
q=*:*fq=contentid:00*start=200rows=200
q=*:*fq=contentid:00*start=400rows=200
q=*:*fq=contentid:00*start=600rows=200
On 10/25/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The typical use case, though, is for the featured document to be on top only
: for certain queries. Like in an intranet where someone queries 401K or
: retirement or similar, you want to feature a document about benefits that
: would
On 10/25/07, Max Scheffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible that the prefix-processing ignores the filters?
Yes, It's a known limitation that we haven't worked out a fix for yet.
The issue is that you can't just run the prefix through the filters
because of things like stop words,
On 10/25/07, Anton Valdstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does solr check automatically for duplicate texts in other fields and
delete documents that have the same text stored in other fields?
Solr automatically overwrites (deletes old versions of) documents with
the same uniqueKey field
On 10/25/07, Matthew Runo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any ideas on when 1.3 might be released? We're starting a new project
and I'd love to use 1.3 for it - is SVN head stable enough for use?
I think it's stable in the sense of does the right thing and doesn't
crash, but IMO
isn't stable in the
On 10/25/07, Anton Valdstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks, that explains a lot (:,
I have another question: about how the idf is calculated:
is the document frequency the sum of all documents containing the term in
one of their fields or just in the field the query contained?
idfs are
On 10/26/07, Karen Loughran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But after distribution of this latest snapshop to the slave the collection
does not show the update (with solr admin query url or via java query client)
UNLESS I restart tomcat ?
Sounds like a config issue with the scripts... pulling the
On 10/29/07, Martin Grotzke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 10:48 -0400, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On 10/25/07, Max Scheffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it possible that the prefix-processing ignores the filters?
Yes, It's a known limitation that we haven't worked out a fix
On 10/30/07, Haishan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks a lot for replying Yonik!
I am running solr on a windows 2003 server (standard version). intel Xeon CPU
3.00GHz, with 4.00 GB RAM.
The index is locate on Raid5 with 2 million documents. Is there any way to
improve query performance
On 10/31/07, Victoria Kaganski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does FunctionQuery actually override the default similarity function? If
it does, how can I still access the similarity value?
FunctionQuery returns the *value* of a field (or a function of it) as
the value for a query - it does not use
Hmmm, a norm of 0.0??? That implies that the boost for that field
(text) was set to zero when it was indexed.
How did you index the data (straight HTTP, SolrJ, etc)? What does
your schema for this field (and copyFields) look like?
-Yonik
On 11/1/07, Robert Young [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Try the latest... I just fixed this.
-Yonik
On 11/1/07, Britske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
experimenting with SOLR 1.3 and discovered that although I specified
solrQueryParser defaultOperator=AND/ in schema.xml
q=a+b behaves as q=a OR B instead of q=a AND b
Obviously this is not correct.
I
On 11/3/07, Brian Whitman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a solr index that hasn't had many problems recently but I had
the logs open and noticed this a lot during indexing:
[16:23:34.086] PERFORMANCE WARNING: Overlapping onDeckSearchers=2
That means that one searcher hasn't yet finished
.
-Yonik
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Yonik Seeley
Sent: Wed 10/31/2007 7:21 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: FW: Score customization
On 10/31/07, Victoria Kaganski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does FunctionQuery actually override
On 11/4/07, Yu-Hui Jin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say we defined a customer filed type that when querying and indexing,
the solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory is used as the last filter to low-case all
letters. In the Analysis UI, we found tokenization is working correctly.
We also defined a
On 11/5/07, Yu-Hui Jin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just curious, does the default operator ( AND or OR) specify the
relationship between a field/value component or between the tokens of the
same field/value componenet?
between any clauses in a boolean query.
e.g. for a query like this:
On 11/5/07, Haishan Chen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for the first issues. The number of different phrase queries have
performance issues I found so far are about 10.
If these are normal phrase queries (no slop), a good solution might be
to simply index and query these phrases as a single
On 11/5/07, evol__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a remark:
!-- Used to specify an alternate directory to hold all index data
other than the default ./data under the Solr home.
If replication is in use, this should match the replication
configuration. --
Might be a good idea
On 11/6/07, evol__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi. Is the expansion method described in the following year old post still
the best available way to do this?
http://www.nabble.com/newbie-Q-regarding-schema-configuration-tf1814271.html#a4956602
The way I understand it, indexing these
field
On 11/6/07, Traut [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have in index document with field name and its value is
somename123
Why I can't find anything with query
name:somename123*
This is a prefix query. No analysis is done on the prefix, so it may
not match analysis that
On 11/6/07, Kristen Roth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yonik - thanks so much for your help! Just to clarify; where should the
regex go for each field?
Each field should have a different FieldType (referenced by the type
XML attribute). Each fieldType can have it's own analyzer. You can
use a
On Nov 7, 2007 12:30 PM, realw5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We did have Tomcat crash once (JVM OutOfMem) durning an indexing process,
could that be a possible source of the issue?
Yes.
Deletes are buffered and carried out in a different phase.
-Yonik
On Nov 10, 2007 4:24 PM, David Neubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if I am hitting multiple fields (in the same search request) that invoke
different Analyzers -- am I at a dead end, and have to result to consequetive
multiple queries instead
Solr handles that for you automatically.
The
On Nov 12, 2007 8:02 AM, Heba Farouk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to use solr to return ranges of searches on an integer
field, if I wrote in the url offset:[0 TO 10], it returns documents
with offset values 0, 1, 10 only but I want to return the range 0,1,2,
3, 4 ,10. How can
On Nov 12, 2007 3:46 AM, SDIS M. Beauchamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I don't optimize, I 've got a too many files open at about 450K files
and 3 Gb index
You may need to increase the number of filedescriptors in your system.
If you're using Linux, see this:
On Nov 12, 2007 2:20 PM, David Neubert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik - thanks, I am considering this approach, verses explicit redundant
indexing -- and am also considering Lucene -
There's not a well defined solution in either IMO.
- problem is, I am one week into both technologies (though
On Nov 13, 2007 6:23 PM, Kasi Sankaralingam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not tokenized, it is a string field, so will it still match
photo for field 'title_s' and book for the default field?
Yes, because the query parser splits up things by whitespace before
analyzers are even applied.
Do you
Unfortunately, the function query parser isn't currently pluggable.
-Yonik
On Nov 14, 2007 2:02 PM, Britske [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've created a simple valueSource which is supposed to calculate a weighted
sum over a list of supplied valuesources.
How can I let Solr recognise this
On Nov 15, 2007 11:06 AM, Jae Joo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am looking for the way to get the score - only hundredth - ex.
4.09something like that.
Currently, it has 7 decimal digits. float name=score1.8032384/float
If you want to display scores only to the hundredths place, simply do
that in
On Nov 17, 2007 2:18 PM, Tricia Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was wondering how Solr people feel about the inclusion of Payload
functionality in the Solr codebase?
All for it... depending on what one means by payload functionality of course.
We should probably hold off on adding a new
501 - 600 of 2724 matches
Mail list logo
