icrosoft",
34, "ATT", 45
] }, "facet_dates": {}, "facet_ranges": {} }
The Expected result would be
"facet_counts": {
"facet_queries": {}, "facet_fields": { "company": [ "Apple", 215
] }, "facet_dates&
t;company": [ "APPLE" ] },
{ "id": "ABC1236", "company": [ "APPLE" ] } ] }, "facet_counts": { "
facet_queries": { "p_company:ucsf\n": 1 }, "facet_fields": { "company": [
"APPLE"
Yeah it's a typo... I meant company:Apple
Thanks
Nilesh
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 8:59 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Kuchekar wrote:
>> company=Apple
> Did you mean company:Apple ?
>
> Otherwise, that could be t
..
...
... "Microsoft",
34, "ATT", 45
] }, "facet_dates": {}, "facet_ranges": {} }
As you can see, query fetched all the distinct values for the 'Company'
along with their count. Is there a way by which I can get the faceting work
directly on the resultset, rather than all the indexed documents.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Nilesh
'content', gave me
515 hits. This makes me believe that tf in 4.4 is correct compared to that
in
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Nilesh
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> I don't have any additional questions, and won't, until you are able to
> supply the inform
the term 'cancer' in the field 'content' should me the count to
be 515.
Please let me known if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Nilesh
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jack Krupansky wrote:
> There may be some token filters that are emitting a diff
s changing the the score.
Also we see that the function 'idf' which depends upon the max doc is
changed.
Are there any changes in 'termFrequency' and 'idf' function in solr 4.4
compared to solr 3.5.
Looking forward for your reply.
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Nilesh
On Thu,
ere as this is not the case in solr
3.5.
Looking forward for the reply.
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Nilesh
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Michael Sokolov <
msoko...@safaribooksonline.com> wrote:
> We've been seeing changes in our rankings as well. I don't have a
> definite answer y
sical memory to be
utilized at 95..%.
Is there any configuration we might be missing.
Looking forward for your reply.
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Nilesh
Hi,
The response from 4.4 and 3.5 in the current scenario differs in the
sequence in which results are given us back.
For example :
Response from 3.5 solr is : id:A, id:B, id:C, id:D ...
Response from 4.4 solr is : id C, id:A, id:D, id:B...
Looking forward your reply.
Thanks.
Kuchekar
;Apple"
The content in both (solr 4.4 and solr 3.5) are same.
The solrconfig.xml from 3.5 an 4.4 are similarly constructed.
Is there something I am missing that might have been changed in 4.4, which
might be causing this issue. ?. The "qf" params looks same.
Looking forward for your reply.
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Nilesh
, we get a problem with copy fields i.e. the value in the copy field
is computed twice. Once from the csv import and other from solr internal
computation.
Is there any other way, by which we can migrate the index from 3.5 to 4.4
solr?.
Looking forward for your reply.
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Nilesh
.
Thanks.
Kuchekar, Nilesh
13 matches
Mail list logo
