the fl must have the unique id field also. because if fl is mentioned it returns only the mentioned one
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Luca Molteni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Uhm, this works great when using only one server, because I can > specify the fields in the configuration file, but It gives me a nice > nullpointer exception when using distributed shards: > > HTTP Status 500 - null java.lang.NullPointerException at > org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.returnFields(QueryComponent.java:511) > at > org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.handleResponses(QueryComponent.java:270) > at > > > for (SolrDocument doc : docs) { > Object id = doc.getFieldValue(keyFieldName); > ShardDoc sdoc = rb.resultIds.get(id.toString()); > if (returnScores && sdoc.score != null) { > doc.setField("score", sdoc.score); > } > rb._responseDocs.set(sdoc.positionInResponse, doc); > } > > Any idea? > > L.M. > > > 2008/11/5 Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ् <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> the 'fl' parameter can be added to the defaults for your search >> handler in solrconfig.xml >> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Luca Molteni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hello everybody, >> > >> > dealing with very large fields, let's say text documents, I found that >> > there >> > is a global slowness (on my computer) in returning those field. Since most >> > of the time what we want is an "highlight" value of the field and not the >> > entire field, I thought that we can omit these field from the query. I've >> > tried two methods: >> > >> > - Stored = false works very well, the query is faster, but the >> > highlightning >> > doesn't work anymore (sigh, I know it's by design). >> > - Stored = true and filtering with the "fl" parameters requires me to enter >> > all the fields by hand, since the fl query doesn't support a minus operator >> > (let's say, all the field withouth my >> > veryLargeFieldIDontWantToRetrieveButIWantToSeeAVerySmallPortion). >> > >> > Strangely, using the "fl" parameter in federeated search with "shards" and >> > two different server with different schemas, gave me strange results (no >> > results, actually). It all works well using only one shard, but it was very >> > difficult to benchmark it. >> > >> > Any advice? I hope I'm missing something. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > L.M. >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> --Noble Paul > -- --Noble Paul