done something along these lines:
https://svnweb.cern.ch/trac/rcarepo/wiki/InspireAutoSuggest#Autosuggestautocompletefunctionality
but you would need MontySolr for that - https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr
roman
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Octavian Covalschi
, 1749708, 1744494]
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Some time ago we have done some measurement of the performance fo the
regexp queries and found that they are VERY FAST! We can't be grateful
enough, it saves many days/lives ;)
This was an old
Try separating multi word synonyms with a null byte
simple\0syrup,sugar\0syrup,stock\0syrup
see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-4499 for details
roman
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Zac Smith z...@trinkit.com wrote:
Thanks for your response. When I don't include the
@wunder
It is a misconception (well, supported by that wiki description) that the
query time synonym filter have these problems. It is actually the default
parser, that is causing these problems. Look at this if you still think
that index time synonyms are cure for all:
, it was TV and television. Documents with TV had higher
scores than those with television.
wunder
On Dec 12, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Roman Chyla wrote:
@wunder
It is a misconception (well, supported by that wiki description) that the
query time synonym filter have these problems. It is actually
Jay Luker has written MoreLikeThese which is probably what you want. You
may give it a try, though I am not sure if it works with Solr4.0 at this
point (we didn't port it yet)
if you are inside solr, as it seems to be the case, you can do this
QParserPlugin qplug =
req.getCore().getQueryPlugin(LuceneQParserPlugin.NAME);
QParser parser = qplug.createParser(PATIENT_GENDER:Male OR
STUDY_DIVISION:\Cancer Center\, null, req.getParams(), req);
Query q = parser.parse();
apparently, it fails also with @SuppressCodecs(Lucene3x)
roman
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a float field 'read_count' - and unittest like:
assertQ(req(q, read_count:1.0),
//doc/int[@name='recid'][.='9218920
The test checks we are properly getting/indexing data - we index database
and fetch parts of the documents separately from mongodb. You can look at
the file here:
8, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
The test checks we are properly getting/indexing data - we index database
and fetch parts of the documents separately from mongodb. You can look at
the file here:
https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr/blob
hi,
it is probably correct to revisit your design/requirements, but it you
still find you need it, then there may be a different way
DIH is using a writer to commit documents, you can detect errors inside
these and try to recover - ie. in some situations, you want to commit,
instead of calling
You could use LocalSolrQueryRequest to create the request, but it is not
necessary, if all what you need is to get the lucene query parser, just do:
import org.apache.lucene.queryparser.classic.QueryParser
qp = new QueryParser(Version.LUCENE_40, defaultField, new SimpleAnalyzer());
Query q =
Me too, it fails randomly with test classes. We use Solr4.0 for testing, no
maven, only ant.
--roman
On 4 Feb 2013 20:48, Mike Schultz mike.schu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. Just today actually. I had some unit test based on
AbstractSolrTestCase which worked in 4.0 but in 4.1 they would fail
,
--
Steffen
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 23:03 , Roman Chyla wrote:
Hi,
I do realize this is a very broad question, but still I need to ask it.
Suppose you make a change into the scoring formula. How do you
test/know/see what impact it had? Any framework out
Oh, wonderful! Thank you :) I was hacking some simple python/R scripts that
can do a similar job for qf... the idea was to let the algorithm create
possible combinations of params and compare that against the baseline.
Would it be possible/easy to instruct the tool to harvest results for
Or if you prefer EBNF, look here (but it differs slghtly from the grammar
Jack linked to):
https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr/blob/master/contrib/antlrqueryparser/grammars/StandardLuceneGrammar.g
roman
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.comwrote:
Right
hi Andy,
It seems like a common type of operation and I would be also curious what
others think. My take on this is to create a compressed intbitset and send
it as a query filter, then have the handler decompress/deserialize it, and
use it as a filter query. We have already done experiments with
to be able to do 100,000 random
access disk IOs in 2 seconds, let alone process the results.
wunder
On Mar 8, 2013, at 9:32 AM, Roman Chyla wrote:
hi Andy,
It seems like a common type of operation and I would be also curious what
others think. My take on this is to create a compressed
Hi,
The standard lucene/solr parsing is nice but not really flexible. I
saw questions and discussion about ANTLR, but unfortunately never a
working grammar, so... maybe you find this useful:
https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr/tree/master/src/java/org/apache/lucene/queryParser/iqp/antlr
In
Query from the queries produced in the
tree parsing.
Hope this helps.
Peter
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Jason Toy jason...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd love to see the progress on this.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
The standard lucene
Hi, I agree that people can register arbitrary qparsers, however the
question might have been understoo differently - about the ANLR parser
that can handle what solr qparser does (and that one is looking at
_query_: and similar stuff -- or at local params, which is what can be
copypasted into the
Dear Solr experts,
Could you recommend some strategies or perhaps tell me if I approach
my problem from a wrong side? I was hoping to use MultiSearcher to
search across multiple indexes in Solr, but there is no such a thing
and MultiSearcher was removed according to this post:
be also faster
Cheers,
roman
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Bill Bell billnb...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not just use sharding across the 2 cores?
On 2/5/11 8:49 AM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Solr experts,
Could you recommend some strategies or perhaps tell me if I approach
Hi,
Is it possible to set local arguments for each query clause?
example:
{!type=x q.field=z}something AND {!type=database}something
I am pulling together result sets coming from two sources, Solr index
and DB engine - however I realized that local parameters apply only to
the whole query -
-in-solr/
On 3/2/2011 10:24 AM, Roman Chyla wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to set local arguments for each query clause?
example:
{!type=x q.field=z}something AND {!type=database}something
I am pulling together result sets coming from two sources, Solr index
and DB engine - however I realized
Hi,
what you want to do is not that difficult, you can use json, eg.
try:
conn = urllib.urlopen(url, params)
page = conn.read()
rsp = simplejson.loads(page)
conn.close()
return rsp
except Exception, e:
log.error(str(e))
, I'd update what you have to look at /solr/collection1 rather
than simply /solr. It's still the default core, so simple URLs without the
core name will still work. It won't affect HTTP communication. Just file
system location.
On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Roman Chyla wrote:
Hi
Hello,
(Please excuse cross-posting, my problem is with a solr component, but
the underlying issue is inside the lucene test-framework)
I am porting 3x unittests to the solr/lucene trunk. My unittests are
OK and pass, but in the end fail because the new rule checks for
modifier properties. I
Thank you! I haven't really understood the LuceneTestCase.classRules
before this.
roman
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: I am porting 3x unittests to the solr/lucene trunk. My unittests are
: OK and pass, but in the end fail because the new
Or for names that are more involved, you can use special
tokenizer/filter chain and index different variants of the name into
one index
example:
https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr/blob/solr-trunk/contrib/adsabs/src/java/org/apache/lucene/analysis/synonym/AuthorSynonymFilter.java
roman
On
Apologies if you already do something similar, but perhaps of general
interest...
One (different approach) to your problem is to implement a local
fingerprint - if you want to find documents with overlapping segments, this
algorithm will dramatically reduce the number of segments you
.
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Apologies if you already do something similar, but perhaps of general
interest...
One (different approach) to your problem is to implement a local
fingerprint - if you want to find documents with overlapping
should be: -city:H* OR zip:30*
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Peter Schütt newsgro...@pstt.de wrote:
Hallo,
I do not really understand the query language of the SOLR-Queryparser.
I use SOLR 4.2 und I have nearly 20 sample address records in the
SOLR-Database.
I only use the q
http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/adsabs/search/?q=%28-abstract%3Ablack%29+AND+abstract%3Ahole*db_key=ASTRONOMYsort_type=DATE
roman
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Peter Schütt newsgro...@pstt.de wrote:
Hallo,
Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote in
news:caen8dywjrl
Hi,
Is there some profound reason why the defType is not passed onto the filter
query?
Both query and filterQuery are created inside the QueryComponent, however
differently:
QParser parser = QParser.getParser(rb.getQueryString(), defType, req);
QParser fqp = QParser.getParser(fq, null, req);
, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is there some profound reason why the defType is not passed onto the
filter
query?
defType is a convenience so that the main query parameter q can
directly be the user query (without specifying it's type like
edismax).
Filter
Hi Jan,
Please add this one http://29min.wordpress.com/category/antlrqueryparser/
- I can't edit the wiki
This parser is written with ANTLR and on top of lucene modern query parser.
There is a version which implements Lucene standard QP as well as a version
which includes proximity operators,
syntax is really something I think we should get into
the default lucene parser. Can't wait to have a look at your code.
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
6. mai 2013 kl. 15:41 skrev Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com:
Hi Jan,
Please add this one
http
We have synonym files bigger than 5MB so even with compression that would
be probably failing (not using solr cloud yet)
Roman
On 6 May 2013 23:09, David Parks davidpark...@yahoo.com wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to only store a pointer to a synonyms file in
zookeeper? Maybe just make the
David, have you seen the finite state automata the synonym lookup is built
on? The lookup is very efficient and fast. You have a point though, it is
going to fail for someone.
Roman
On 8 May 2013 03:11, David Parks davidpark...@yahoo.com wrote:
I can see your point, though I think edge cases
Hi Mukesh,
This seems like something lucene developers should be aware of - you have
probably spent quiet some time to find problem/solution. Could you create a
JIRA ticket?
Roman
On 10 May 2013 03:29, mukesh katariya mukesh.katar...@e-zest.in wrote:
There is a problem with Base64 encoding.
.
--
Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
6. mai 2013 kl. 19:58 skrev Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com:
Hi Jan,
My login is RomanChyla
Thanks,
Roman
On 6 May 2013 10:00, Jan Høydahl jan@cominvent.com wrote:
Hi Roman,
This sounds great
You are right that starting to parse the query before the query component
can get soon very ugly and complicated. You should take advantage of the
flex parser, it is already in lucene contrib - but if you are interested in
the better version, look at
overcome this issue?
you can also try modifying the standard solr parser, or even the JavaCC
generated classes
I believe many people do just that (or some sort of preprocessing)
roman
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
wrote:
You are right that starting to parse
You can store them and then use different analyzer chains on it (stored,
doesn't need to be indexed)
I'd probably use the collector pattern
se.search(new MatchAllDocsQuery(), new Collector() {
private AtomicReader reader;
private int i = 0;
@Override
public boolean
I think you should take a look at the TimeLimitingCollector (it is used
also inside SolrIndexSearcher).
My understanding is that it will stop your server from consuming
unnecessary resources.
--roman
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Bernd Fehling
bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de wrote:
How are
Hello,
I need your expert advice. I am thinking about running two instances of
solr that share the same datadirectory. The *reason* being: indexing
instance is constantly building cache after every commit (we have a big
cache) and this slows it down. But indexing doesn't need much RAM, only the
the index manually:
curl
http://localhost:5005/solr/admin/cores?wt=jsonaction=RELOADcore=collection1
But this is not an ideal solution; I'd like for the read-only server to
discover index changes on its own. Any pointers?
Thanks,
roman
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch
explicitly for this purpose, including the
automatic discovery of changes to the data on the index master.
Jason
On Jun 4, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so I have verified the two instances can run alongside, sharing the
same datadir
All update handlers
to tell the
searcher the index has changed, then call commit when called (more complex
coding, but good if the index changes on an ad-hoc basis).
Note, doing things this way isn't really suitable for an NRT environment.
HTH,
Peter
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch
, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thank you, I am glad to read that this usecase is not alien.
I'd like to make the second instance (searcher) completely read-only, so I
have disabled all the components that can write.
(being lazy ;)) I'll probably use
http
the index. If I'm
reading that right, you'd set an autoCommit on 'zero docs changing', or
just 'every N seconds'? Did that work?
Best of luck!
Tim
On 5 June 2013 10:19, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
So here it is for a record how I am solving it right now:
Write-master
Hello Yanis,
We are probably using something similar - eg. 'functional operators' - eg.
edismax() to treat everything inside the bracket as an argument for
edismax, or pos() to search for authors based on their position. And
invenio() which is exactly what you describe, to get results from
I think you can modify the response writer and stream results instead of
building them first and then sending in one go. I am using this technique
to dump millions of docs in json format - but in your case you may have to
figure out how to dump during streaming if you don't want to save data to
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Jochen Lienhard
lienh...@ub.uni-freiburg.de wrote:
Hi @all.
We have the problem that after an update the index takes to much time for
'warm up'.
We have some multivalued facet-fields and during the startup solr creates
the messages:
INFO: UnInverted
Cores can be reloaded, they are inside solrcore loader /I forgot the exact
name/, and they will have different classloaders /that's servlet thing/, so
if you want singletons you must load them outside of the core, using a
parent classloader - in case of jetty, this means writing your own jetty
other cores then?
thank you Roman
On Jun 29, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Cores can be reloaded, they are inside solrcore loader /I forgot the
exact
name/, and they will have different classloaders /that's servlet thing/,
so
if you want singletons you must
Hello @,
This thread 'kicked' me into finishing som long-past task of
sending/receiving large boolean (bitset) filter. We have been using bitsets
with solr before, but now I sat down and wrote it as a qparser. The use
cases, as you have discussed are:
- necessity to send lng list of ids as
Wrong link to the parser, should be:
https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr/blob/master/contrib/adsabs/src/java/org/apache/solr/search/BitSetQParserPlugin.java
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello @,
This thread 'kicked' me into finishing som long
for
the readers and 'native' for the writer, which seems to work OK
roman
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
I have auto commit after 40k RECs/1800secs. But I only tested with manual
commit, but I don't see why it should work differently.
Roman
On 7 Jun 2013 20
in solr as a content stream? It makes base64 compression not necessary.
AFAIK url length is limited somehow, anyway.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong link to the parser, should be:
https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr/blob/master/contrib
, and it works fine - no contention.
Which version of Solr are you using? Perhaps there's been a change in
behaviour?
Peter
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
as i discovered, it is not good to use 'native' locktype in this
scenario,
actually there is a note
Hi Niran, all,
Please look at JIRA LUCENE-5014. There you will find a Lucene parser that
does both analysis and span queries, equivalent to combination of
lucene+surround, and much more The ticket needs your review.
Roman
Hi Kathryn,
I wonder if you could index all your terms as separate documents and then
construct a new query (2nd pass)
q=term:term1 OR term:term2 OR term:term3
and use func to score them
*idf(other_field,field(term))*
*
*
the 'term' index cannot be multi-valued, obviously.
Other than that, if
, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Interesting, we are running 4.0 - and solr will refuse the start (or
reload) the core. But from looking at the code I am not seeing it is
doing
any writing - but I should digg more...
Are you sure it needs to do writing
Yes :-) see SOLR-118, seems an old issue...
On 4 Jul 2013 06:43, David Quarterman da...@corexe.com wrote:
Hi,
About once a week the admin system comes up with SolrCore Initialization
Failures. There's nothing in the logs and SOLR continues to work in the
application it's supporting and in
I don't want to sound negative, but I think it is a valid question to
consider - for the lack of information and certain mental rigidity may make
it sound bad - first of all, it is probably not for few gigabytes of data
and I can imagine that building indexes at the side when data lives is much
:35 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Kathryn,
I wonder if you could index all your terms as separate documents and then
construct a new query (2nd pass)
q=term:term1 OR term:term2 OR term:term3
and use func to score them
*idf(other_field,field(term
Hello,
The joins are not the only idea, you may want to write your own function
(ValueSource) that can implement your logic. However, I think you should
not throw away the regex idea (as being slow), before trying it out -
because it can be faster than the joins. Your problem is that the number
One of the approaches is to index create a new field based on the stopwords
(ie accept only stopwords :)) - ie. if the documents contains them, you
index 1 - and use a q=applefq=bad_apple:0
This has many limitations (in terms of flexibility), but it will be
superfast
roman
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013
the feature described at
http://www.elasticsearch.org/blog/terms-filter-lookup/
Would be a cool addition, IMHO.
Otis
--
Solr ElasticSearch Support -- http://sematext.com/
Performance Monitoring -- http://sematext.com/spm
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
Other than using futures and callables? Runnables ;-) Other than that you
will need async request (ie. client).
But in case sb else is looking for an easy-recipe for the server-side async:
public void handleRequestBody(.) {
if (isBusy()) {
rsp.add(message, Batch processing is already
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcelo Elias Del Valle mvall...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
I have asked a question recently about solr limitations and some about
joins. It comes that this question is about both at the same time.
I am trying to figure how to denormalize my data so I
Hi Mikhail,
I have commented on your blog, but it seems I have done st wrong, as the
comment is not there. Would it be possible to share the test setup (script)?
I have found out that the crucial thing with joins is the number of 'joins'
[hits returned] and it seems that the experiments I have
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Oleg Burlaca oburl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Erick,
Join performance is most sensitive to the number of values
in the field being joined on. So if you have lots and lots of
distinct values in the corpus, join performance will be affected.
Yep, we have a
cool
Erick
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Oleg Burlaca oburl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Erick,
Join performance is most sensitive to the number of values
in the field being joined on. So
Well, I think this is slightly too categorical - a range query on a
substring can be thought of as a simple range query. So, for example the
following query:
lucene 1*
becomes behind the scenes: lucene (10|11|12|13|14|1abcd)
the issue there is that it is a string range, but it is a range query
if it was useful for me. Thanks.
Kind regards.
On 16 July 2013 20:07, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I think this is slightly too categorical - a range query on a
substring can be thought of as a simple range query. So, for example the
following query:
lucene 1
Hi all,
What I find very 'sad' is that Lucene/SOLR contain all the necessary
components for handling multi-token synonyms; the Finite State Automaton
works perfectly for matching these items; the biggest problem is IMO the
old query parser which split things on spaces and doesn't know to be
the synonym phrase problem. Yes, progress is
being made, but we're not there yet.
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message- From: Roman Chyla
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 9:58 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Searching w/explicit Multi-Word Synonym Expansion
Hi all,
What I
-the-shelf, today, no patches required.)
-- Jack Krupansky
-Original Message- From: Roman Chyla
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:44 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Searching w/explicit Multi-Word Synonym Expansion
OK, let's do a simple test instead of making claims - take
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 2:03 PM, dmarini david.marini...@gmail.com wrote:
Roman,
As a developer, I understand where you are coming from. My issue is that I
specialize in .NET, haven't done java dev in over 10 years. As an
organization we're new to solr (coming from endeca) and
a JIRA, there's
no harm in it.
Best
Erick
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Erick,
I wasn't sure this issue is important, so I wanted first solicit some
feedback. You and Otis expressed interest, and I could create the JIRA
Look at speed of reading the data - likely, it takes long time to assemble
a big response, especially if there are many long fields - you may want to
try SSD disks, if you have that option.
Also, to gain better understanding: Start your solr, start jvisualvm and
attach to your running solr. Start
Deepak,
I think your goal is to gain something in speed, but most likely the
function query will be slower than the query without score computation (the
filter query) - this stems from the fact how the query is executed, but I
may, of course, be wrong. Would you mind sharing measurements you
take some time. But I guess I should
measure it. I haven't made notes so now I am having hard time backtracking
:)
roman
It seems to me cross segment join works well.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.comwrote:
ah, in case you know the solution, here ant output
Hello Matt,
You can consider writing a batch processing handler, which receives a query
and instead of sending results back, it writes them into a file which is
then available for streaming (it has its own UUID). I am dumping many GBs
of data from solr in few minutes - your query + streaming
that streaming writer works? What does it stream
docList or docSet?
Thanks
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Matt,
You can consider writing a batch processing handler, which receives a
query
and instead of sending results back, it writes
acceptable (~ within minutes) ?
Thanks,
Matt
On 7/23/13 6:57 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Matt,
You can consider writing a batch processing handler, which receives a
query
and instead of sending results back, it writes them into a file which is
then available
_One_ idea would be to configure your java to dump core on the oom error -
you can then load the dump into some analyzers, eg. Eclipse, and that may
give you the desired answers (I fortunately don't remember that from top of
my head how to activate the dump, but google will give your the answer)
This paper contains an excellent algorithm for plagiarism detection, but
beware the published version had a mistake in the algorithm - look for
corrections - I can't find them now, but I know they have been published
(perhaps by one of the co-authors). You could do it with solr, to create an
index
Hi,
I think you are pushing it too far - there is no 'string search' without an
index. And besides, these things are just better done by a few lines of
code - and if your array is too big, then you should create the index...
roman
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Rohit Kumar
Dear list,
I'vw written a special processor exactly for this kind of operations
https://github.com/romanchyla/montysolr/tree/master/contrib/adsabs/src/java/org/apache/solr/handler/batch
This is how we use it
http://labs.adsabs.harvard.edu/trac/ads-invenio/wiki/SearchEngineBatch
It is capable of
Mikhail,
If your solution gives lazy loading of solr docs /and thus streaming of
huge result lists/ it should be big YES!
Roman
On 27 Jul 2013 07:55, Mikhail Khludnev mkhlud...@griddynamics.com wrote:
Otis,
You gave links to 'deep paging' when I asked about response streaming.
Let me
/m-khl/solr-patches/compare/streaming#L2R57
hence, no facets with streaming, yet as well as memory consumption.
This test shows how it works
https://github.com/m-khl/solr-patches/compare/streaming#L15R115
all other code purposed for distributed search.
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Roman
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Shawn Heisey s...@elyograg.org wrote:
On 7/27/2013 11:38 AM, Joe Zhang wrote:
I have a constantly growing index, so not updating the index can't be
practical...
Going back to the beginning of this thread: when we use the vanilla
*:*+pagination approach,
Hi,
Yes, it can be done, if you search the mailing list for 'two solr instances
same datadir', you will a post where i am describing our setup - it works
well even with automated deployments
how do you measure performance? I am asking before one reason for us having
the same setup is sharing the
Hello,
I have been wanting some tools for measuring performance of SOLR, similar
to Mike McCandles' lucene benchmark.
so yet another monitor was born, is described here:
http://29min.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/measuring-solr-query-performance/
I tested it on the problem of garbage collectors (see
solrjmeter.py, line 66, in error
traceback.print_stack()
Cannot contact: http://localhost:8983/solr
complains about URL, clicking which leads properly to the admin page...
solr 4.3.1, 2 cores shard
Dmitry
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
I have
of default G1 as 'bad', and that these G1 parameters, even if they
don't seem G1 specific, have real effect.
Thanks,
roman
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Shawn Heisey s...@elyograg.org wrote:
On 7/30/2013 6:59 PM, Roman Chyla wrote:
I have been wanting some tools for measuring performance
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
