Hello
my date query returns mismatch with and without sort parameter. The query
parameter is on date field, on which records are inserted few hours ago.
sort parameter is different from query parameter, which is the expected the
count.
Any clues if how it could be different?
I am planning to do
ntract and the disk will shrink back to only what it
>> needs. saved me a lot of headaches not needing to ever worry about disk
>> space
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 4:43 PM Raveendra Yerraguntla
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> when optimize command i
when optimize command is issued, the expectation after the completion of
optimization process is that the index size either decreases or at most remain
same. In solr 7.6 cluster with 50 plus shards, when optimize command is issued,
some of the shard's transient or older segment files are not
the leader role unless and until you can prove
that having unbalanced leaders is really having a performance impact. In my
experience, 95% of the time people spend time trying to manage which nodes are
leaders the effort is wasted.
Best,
Erick
> On Apr 20, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Raveendra Yerragun
All,
We are upgrading from solr 5.4 to solr 7.6. In 5.4 each solr process based on
the core.properties (shard value assigned) will be joining as either leader or
replica based on the sequence of start.
By following the same procedure in 7.6 the initial leader node solr process is
replaced with
of them as true, the score value is returned when the
expand.sort is done on any other field.
On Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 11:09:21 AM EDT, Raveendra Yerraguntla
wrote:
All,
I am using the collapse plugin with the following query params
text_field:( apple OR apples) ) )
Fq : {!collapse
All,
I am using the collapse plugin with the following query params
text_field:( apple OR apples) ) )
Fq : {!collapse field=string_field sort='numeric_field asc , score desc '
nullPolicy=expand}
Raw params : expand=true=600=numeric_field asc
The above query results in score value of NaN
stein
http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 11:21 AM Raveendra Yerraguntla
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> In 6.4 (Solr-9717) SortingResponseWriter is renamed to ExportWriter and
> moved to a different package.
>
> For migrating to higher Solr (post 6.4) versions, I need to help with
Hello All,
In 6.4 (Solr-9717) SortingResponseWriter is renamed to ExportWriter and moved
to a different package.
For migrating to higher Solr (post 6.4) versions, I need to help with
compatible functionalities.
Application is using SortingResponseWriter in the searcher handlers inform
uld be a good place to read
> about some of this, and provides a way to help force a one-pass even if you
> need other fields.
>
>
>> On 6/15/16, 7:31 AM, "Raveendra Yerraguntla"
>> <raveendra.yerragun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I need help
I need help in understanding a query in solr cloud.
When user issues a query , there are are two phases of query - one with the
purpose(from debug info) of GET_TOP_FIELDS and another with GET_FIELDS.
This is having an effect on end to end performance of the application.
- what triggers (any
Thanks Shawn.
I got both the replies. Most likely we might have used some of the NFS
options. I will try them early next week.
Thanks
Ravi
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Shawn Heisey <apa...@elyograg.org> wrote:
> On 3/23/2016 6:00 AM, Raveendra Yerraguntla wrote:
> > I am
All,
I am using Solr 5.4 in solr cloud mode in a 8 node cluster. Used the
replication factor of 1 for creating the index, then switched to
replication factor > 1 for redundancy. With replication factor > 1, and
tried to do indexing for incremental. When the incremental indexing
happens - getting
13 matches
Mail list logo
