50-100 updates
per minute.
- Original Message
From: Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org; jason rutherglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 5:36:14 PM
Subject: Re: Solr Multisearcher
On 4/5/06, jason rutherglen <[EMAIL PR
Thanks for the hint about the score, that works well.
- Original Message
From: Mark Backman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 3:44:07 PM
Subject: Re: Solr Multisearcher
>> Does the current Solr protocol 2.0 return a score?
On 4/5/06, jason rutherglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am still interested in doing a bit more to make the replication faster.
> Rsync scans over all the files for changes which on a large index can take
> time.
We set up rsync to only look at the file size and timestamp (not
checksum it..
ge
From: Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 2:19:40 PM
Subject: Re: Solr Multisearcher
On 4/5/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but the first step would probably be to provide the same
> level of funct
D]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 3:44:07 PM
Subject: Re: Solr Multisearcher
>> Does the current Solr protocol 2.0 return a score?
Yes.
Solr returns a score, but only if you specify it in
the field list of a query (i.e.: &fl=*,score)... there
is a b
each server. Seems like it would just do a
> merge. Does the current Solr protocol 2.0 return a
> score? I was thinking of adding this.
>
> - Original Message
> From: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Wednesday, Apr
.
- Original Message
From: Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 2:34:01 PM
Subject: Re: Solr Multisearcher
: > but the first step would probably be to provide the same
: > level of functionality MultiSearcher
:
: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2006 2:10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Solr Multisearcher
: Lucene's MultiSearcher can already get you the top "n" documents,
: filtered, and sorted by score or other criteria.
right, that logic could probably be refactored into
: > but the first step would probably be to provide the same
: > level of functionality MultiSearcher
:
: Ahh, I was thinking the first step would be to try and use
: MultiSearcher via RemoteSearcher/RemoteSearchable.
Ah ... you were thinking something like this...
MultiSearcher(Searchable[])
On 4/5/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but the first step would probably be to provide the same
> level of functionality MultiSearcher
Ahh, I was thinking the first step would be to try and use
MultiSearcher via RemoteSearcher/RemoteSearchable.
-Yonik
: Lucene's MultiSearcher can already get you the top "n" documents,
: filtered, and sorted by score or other criteria.
right, that logic could probably be refactored into a base class so both
MultiSearcher(Searchable[]) and some new SolrMultiSearcher(URL[]) could
use them ... my question is more
On 4/5/06, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : IMO, it's probably a bad idea unless your index is simply too large to
> : service queries in a reasonable amount of time. Things become much
> : harder when distributed (for example, how would you take the
> : intersection of two sets of d
: IMO, it's probably a bad idea unless your index is simply too large to
: service queries in a reasonable amount of time. Things become much
: harder when distributed (for example, how would you take the
: intersection of two sets of documents in a distributed manner)? Any
: type of distributed
On 4/5/06, jason rutherglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone looking at partitioning Solr indices over several machines and then
> querying using a multisearcher? Or creating a multisearcher like class for
> Solr? Would this idea be considered with the design of Solr or a bad idea?
>
It'
Is anyone looking at partitioning Solr indices over several machines and then
querying using a multisearcher? Or creating a multisearcher like class for
Solr? Would this idea be considered with the design of Solr or a bad idea?
15 matches
Mail list logo
