Re: Exact matching without using new fields

2021-01-19 Thread gnandre
first case. Otherwise pass it through. > > Needs custom analyzers on the query and index sides to generate the > correct token sequences. > > It's worked out well for our case. > > Dave > > > > > From: gnandre > Sent: Tuesda

Exact matching without using new fields

2021-01-19 Thread gnandre
Hi, I am aware that to do exact matching (only whatever is provided inside double quotes should be matched) in Solr, we can copy existing fields with the help of copyFields into new fields that have very minimal tokenization or no tokenization (e.g. using KeywordTokenizer or using string field

FST building precaution

2021-01-08 Thread gnandre
Hi, following comment is mentioned in https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/util/fst/package-info.java . "Input values (keys). These must be provided to Builder in Unicode code point (UTF8 or UTF32) sorted order. Note that sorting by Java's

distrib.requestTimes and distrib.totalTime metric always show 0 for any sub-metric

2020-12-23 Thread gnandre
*distrib.requestTimes and *distrib.totalTime metric always show 0 for any sub-metric. Only *local.requestTimes and *local.totalTime metric have non-zero values. This is when we hit solr:8983/solr/admin/metrics endpoint. e.g. "QUERY./select.distrib.requestTimes":{ "count":0,

Duplicate entries for request handlers in Solr metric reporter

2020-10-26 Thread gnandre
Hi, I have hooked up Grafana dashboards with Solr 8.5.2 Prometheus exporter. For some reason, some dashboards like Requests, Timeouts are not showing any data. When I took a look at corresponding data from Prometheus exporter, it showed two entries per search request handler, first with count of

Error false and Error true in Solr logs

2020-10-15 Thread gnandre
Hi, What do Error false and Error true flags mentioned against Solr errors in Solr admin UI log mean?

Re: Term too complex for spellcheck.q param

2020-10-07 Thread gnandre
Is there a way to truncate spellcheck.q param value from Solr side? On Wed, Oct 7, 2020, 6:22 PM gnandre wrote: > Thanks. Is this going to be fixed in some future version? > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020, 4:15 PM Mike Drob wrote: > >> Right now the only solution is to

Re: Term too complex for spellcheck.q param

2020-10-07 Thread gnandre
t the syntax for a spellcheck would be. > > Mike > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 2:59 PM gnandre wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am getting following error when I pass ' > > 김포오피➬유유닷컴➬✗UUDAT3.COM유유닷컴김포풀싸롱て김포오피ふ김포휴게텔け김포마사지❂김포립카페じ김포안마 > > ' in spellchec

Term too complex for spellcheck.q param

2020-10-07 Thread gnandre
Hi, I am getting following error when I pass ' 김포오피➬유유닷컴➬✗UUDAT3.COM유유닷컴김포풀싸롱て김포오피ふ김포휴게텔け김포마사지❂김포립카페じ김포안마 ' in spellcheck.q param. How to avoid this error? I am using Solr 8.5.2 { "error": { "code": 500, "msg": "Term too complex: 김포오피➬유유닷컴➬✗uudat3.com

Returning fields a specific order

2020-09-28 Thread gnandre
Hi, I have a use-case where I want to compare stored fields values of Solr documents from two different Solr instances. I can use a diff tool to compare them but only if they returned the fields in specific order in the response. I tried setting fl param with all the fields specified in

Re: Difference in q.op param behavior between Solr 6.3 and Solr 8.5.2

2020-09-28 Thread gnandre
s, shouldn't > affect fq's, to say it a little differently. > > One can fq={!lucene q.op=AND}id:(1 2 3) > > Erik > > > > On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:23 PM, gnandre wrote: > > > > Is there a way to set default operator as AND for fq parameter in Solr &g

Re: Difference in q.op param behavior between Solr 6.3 and Solr 8.5.2

2020-09-23 Thread gnandre
Is there a way to set default operator as AND for fq parameter in Solr 8.5.2 now? On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:44 PM gnandre wrote: > In 6.3, q.op param used to affect q as well fq param behavior. E.g. if > q.op is set to AND and fq is set to id:(1 2 3), no results will show up but > if

Difference in q.op param behavior between Solr 6.3 and Solr 8.5.2

2020-09-22 Thread gnandre
In 6.3, q.op param used to affect q as well fq param behavior. E.g. if q.op is set to AND and fq is set to id:(1 2 3), no results will show up but if it is set to OR then all 3 results will show up. This does not happen in Solr 8.5.2 anymore. Is this a bug? What does one need to do in Solr 8.5.2

Re: Solr 8.5.2 - Solr shards param does not work without localhost

2020-08-06 Thread gnandre
Please ignore the space between. I have updated the calls by removing space below: http://my.domain.com/solr/core/select?q=*:*=0=10= my.domain.com/solr/another_core=* http://my.domain.com/solr/core/select?q=*:*=0=10= localhost:8983/solr/another_core=* On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 7:59 PM gnandre

Solr 8.5.2 - Solr shards param does not work without localhost

2020-08-06 Thread gnandre
Hi, In Solr 6.3 I was able to use following shards query: http://my.domain.com/solr/core/select?q=*:*=0=10= my.domain.com /solr/another_core=* Ir does not work in Solr 8.5.2 anymore unless I pass localhost instead of my domain in shards param value as follows:

Solr docker image works with image option but not with build option in docker-compose

2020-07-08 Thread gnandre
Hi, I am using Solr docker image 8.5.2-slim from https://hub.docker.com/_/solr. I use it as a base image and then add some more stuff to it with my custom Dockerfile. When I build the final docker image, it is built successfully. After that, when I try to use it in docker-compose.yml (with build

Re: Solr 8.5.2 indexing issue

2020-07-02 Thread gnandre
s give any more > info? > > Best, > Erick > > > On Jun 27, 2020, at 10:45 PM, gnandre wrote: > > > > { > >"asset_id":"add-ons:576deefef7453a9189aa039b66500eb2", > > > > > "reference_url":"modeling-a-high-speed-backplane-part-3-4-port-s-parameters-to-differential-tdr-and-tdt.html"} > >

Re: Downsides to applying to WordDelimiterFilter twice in analyzer chain

2020-07-01 Thread gnandre
Here are links to images for the Analysis tab. https://pasteboard.co/JfFTYu6.png https://pasteboard.co/JfFUYXf.png On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 3:03 PM gnandre wrote: > I am doing that already but it does not help. > > Here is the complete analyzer chain.

Re: Downsides to applying to WordDelimiterFilter twice in analyzer chain

2020-07-01 Thread gnandre
se one wordDelimiterFilterFactory? > > Best, > Erick > > > On Jul 1, 2020, at 11:05 AM, gnandre wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > To satisfy one use-case, I need to apply WordDelimiterFilter with > > splitOnCaseChange > > with 0 once and then with 1 again. Are

Downsides to applying to WordDelimiterFilter twice in analyzer chain

2020-07-01 Thread gnandre
Hi, To satisfy one use-case, I need to apply WordDelimiterFilter with splitOnCaseChange with 0 once and then with 1 again. Are there some downsides to this approach? Use-case is to be able to match results when indexed content is my.camelCase and search query is camelcase.

Solr 8.5.2 indexing issue

2020-06-27 Thread gnandre
Hi, I have the following document which fails to get indexed. { "asset_id":"add-ons:576deefef7453a9189aa039b66500eb2", "reference_url":"modeling-a-high-speed-backplane-part-3-4-port-s-parameters-to-differential-tdr-and-tdt.html"} I am not sure what is so special about the content in

Re: [EXTERNAL] Getting rid of Master/Slave nomenclature in Solr

2020-06-19 Thread gnandre
Another alternative for master-slave nodes might be parent-child nodes. This was adopted in Python too afaik. On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 2:07 AM gnandre wrote: > What about blacklist and whitelist for shards? May I suggest blocklist and > safelist? > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 1:45 AM Tho

Re: [EXTERNAL] Getting rid of Master/Slave nomenclature in Solr

2020-06-19 Thread gnandre
What about blacklist and whitelist for shards? May I suggest blocklist and safelist? On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 1:45 AM Thomas Corthals wrote: > Since "overseer" is also problematic, I'd like to propose "orchestrator" as > an alternative. > > Thomas > > Op vr 19 jun. 2020 04:34 schreef Walter

Re: Getting rid of Master/Slave nomenclature in Solr

2020-06-17 Thread gnandre
+1 for Leader-Follower. How about Publisher-Subscriber? On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:19 PM Rahul Goswami wrote: > +1 on avoiding SolrCloud terminology. In the interest of keeping it obvious > and simple, may I I please suggest primary/secondary? > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:14 PM Atita Arora

Re: RankLib model output format to Solr LTR model format

2020-06-17 Thread gnandre
/ inspired by code written by Christine Poerschke with her Ltr For > Bees demo / talk > > https://github.com/o19s/hello-ltr/blob/master/ltr/helpers/convert.py > > Best > -Doug > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:46 PM gnandre wrote: > > > Hi, > > >

RankLib model output format to Solr LTR model format

2020-06-17 Thread gnandre
Hi, Before I start writing my own implementation for converting RankLib's model output format to Solr LTR model format for my own use cases, I just wanted to check if there is any work done on this front already. Any references are welcome.

Re: Lucene query to Solr query

2020-06-01 Thread gnandre
Mikhail Khludnev wrote: > There's nothing like this now. Presumably one might visit queries and > generate Query DSL json, but it might be a challenging problem. > > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 3:42 AM gnandre wrote: > > > I think this question here in this thread is s

Re: Lucene query to Solr query

2020-05-30 Thread gnandre
e difference. > > Best, > Erick > > > On May 30, 2020, at 12:32 AM, gnandre wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have following query which works fine as a lucene query: > > +(topics:132)^0.02607211 (topics:146)^0.008187325 > > -asset_id:doc:en:index.html >

Lucene query to Solr query

2020-05-29 Thread gnandre
Hi, I have following query which works fine as a lucene query: +(topics:132)^0.02607211 (topics:146)^0.008187325 -asset_id:doc:en:index.html But, it does not work if I use it as a solr query with lucene as defType. For it to work, I need to convert it like following: q=+((topics:132)^0.02607211

Does Learning To Rank feature require SolrCloud?

2020-05-29 Thread gnandre
Hi, Do following features require SolrCloud? Or do they work in master-slave mode just fine? 1. Learning to rank (LTR) 2. Distributed IDF

Re: SolrCloud upgrade concern

2020-05-29 Thread gnandre
s advantage is that it’s entirely contained within > Solr. But it’s not > > getting much attention lately, meaning nobody has decided the > functionality is important > > enough to them to donate the time/resources to make it more robust. Were > someone > > to ta

Re: SolrCloud upgrade concern

2020-05-27 Thread gnandre
er options. But since you're already using it with some > success, it might be an orthogonal concern to your potential migration > to SolrCloud. > > Best of luck deciding! > > Jason > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 7:06 PM gnandre wrote: > > > > Thanks for this repl

Re: TimestampUpdateProcessorFactory updates the field even if the value if present

2020-05-27 Thread gnandre
Thanks for the detailed response, Chris. I am aware of the partial (atomic) updates. Thanks for clarifying the confusion about input document vs indexed document. I was thinking that TimestampUpdateProcessorFactory checks if the value exists in the field inside indexed document before updating it

Re: SolrCloud upgrade concern

2020-05-22 Thread gnandre
Thanks for this reply, Jason. I am mostly worried about CDCR feature. I am relying heavily on it. Although, I am planning to use Solr 8.3. It has been long time since CDCR was first introduced. I wonder what is the state of CDCR is 8.3. Is it stable now? On Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 8:01 AM Jason

Re: TimestampUpdateProcessorFactory updates the field even if the value if present

2020-05-21 Thread gnandre
Do you index it with an empty > *index_time_stamp_create* field as the second time too? > > Kind Regards, > Furkan KAMACI > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:05 AM gnandre wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Following is the update request processor chain. > > > > &

TimestampUpdateProcessorFactory updates the field even if the value if present

2020-05-21 Thread gnandre
Hi, Following is the update request processor chain. < processor class="solr.TimestampUpdateProcessorFactory"> index_time_stamp_create And, here is how the field is defined in schema.xml Every time I index the same document, above field changes its value with latest timestamp. According