Am 22.06.2011 09:49, schrieb Bill Bell:
> You can type q=cardiology and match on cardiologist. If stemming did not
> work you can just add a synonym:
>
> cardiology,cardiologist
Okay, synonyms are the only way I can think of a realistic match.
Stemming won't work on a facet field; you wouldn't g
Am 27.06.2011 15:56, schrieb Jihed Amine Maaref:
> - normalizedContents:(EDOUAR* AND une) doesn't return anything
This was discussed few days ago:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Conflict-in-wildcard-query-and-spellchecker-in-solr-search-tt3095198.html
> - normalizedContents:(edouar* AND un)
Am 28.06.2011 09:24, schrieb Romi:
> But as i suppose it would be very hard to include synonyms manually for each
> word as my application has large data.
>
> I want to know is there any way that this synonym.text file generate
> automatically referring to all dictionary words
I don't get the poi
Am 29.06.2011 12:30, schrieb samuele.mattiuzzo:
>
>
...
> this is the "final" version of my schema part, but what i get is this:
>
>
>
> 1.0
> Negotiable
> Negotiable
> Negotiable
>
...
The mistake is that you assume that the filter applied to the result.
This is not true. Index
Am 07.07.2011 16:14, schrieb Bob Sandiford:
> [...] (Without the optimize, 'deleted' records still show up in query
> results...)
No, that's not true. The terms remain in the index, but the document
won't show up any more.
Optimize is only for performance (and disk space) optimization, as the
na
Am 07.07.2011 16:52, schrieb Mark juszczec:
> Ok. That's really good to know because optimization of that kind will be
> important.
Optimization is only important if you had a lot of deletes or updated
docs, or if you want your segments get merged. (At least that's what I
know about it.)
>
> Wha
Am 12.07.2011 12:03, schrieb alexander sulz:
> Still, why the PHP stops working correctly is beyond me, but it seems to
> be fixed now.
You should mind the max_execution_time parameter in you php.ini.
Greetings,
Kuli
Am 12.07.2011 12:13, schrieb Lox:
> Hi,
>
> In the case where two or more documents are returned with the same score, is
> there a way to tell Solr to sort them alphabetically?
Yes, add the parameter
sort=score desc,your_field_that_shall_be_sorted_alphabetically asc
to your request.
Greetings,
Am 13.07.2011 14:05, schrieb Gabriele Kahlout:
> this is what i was expecting. Otherwise updating a field of a document that
> has an unstored but indexed field is impossible (without losing the unstored
> but indexed field. I call this updating a field of a document AND
> deleting/updating all its
Am 13.07.2011 15:37, schrieb Gabriele Kahlout:
> Well, I'm !sure how usual this scenario would be:
> 1. In general those using solr with nutch don't store the content field to
> avoid storing the whole web/intranet in their index, twice (1 in the form of
> stored data, and one in the form of indexe
Am 13.07.2011 16:09, schrieb Gabriele Kahlout:
> Solr is already configured by default not to store more than a
> anyway. Usually one stores content only to display
> snippets.
Yes, but the snippets must come from somewhere.
For instance, if you're using Solr's highlighting feature, all
highligh
Hi,
we are running Solr 3.2.0 on Jetty for a web application. Since we just
went online and are still in beta tests, we don't have very much load on
our servers (indeed, they're currently much oversized for the current
usage), and our index size on file system ist just 1.1 MB.
We have one dedicat
Am 22.07.2011 14:27, schrieb cnyee:
> I think I know what it is. The second query has higher scores than the first.
>
> The additional condition "domain_ids:(0^1.3 OR 1)" which evaluates to true
> always - pushed up the scores and allows a LOT more records to pass.
This can't be, because the scor
On 01.08.2012 13:58, jayakeerthi s wrote:
We have a requirement, where we need to implement 2 fields as Facetable,
but the values of the fields should not be Searchable.
Simply don't search for it, then it's not searchable.
Or do I simply don't understand your question? As long as Dismax doesn
On 01.08.2012 15:40, Jack Krupansky wrote:
The "indexed" and "stored" field attributes are independent, so you can
define a facet field as "stored" but not "indexed" (stored="true"
indexed="false"), so that the field can be faceted but not indexed.
?
A field must be indexed to be used for face
On 02.08.2012 01:52, Anand Henry wrote:
Hi,
In SOLR 3.4, while doing a geo-spatial search, is there a way to retrieve
the distance of each document from the specified location?
Not that I know of.
What we did was to read and parse the location field on client side and
calculate the distance
On 07.08.2012 21:43, Jason Axelson wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to connect to SOLR over a socket file as is possible
with mysql? I've looked around and I get the feeling that I may be
mi-understanding part of SOLR's architecture.
Any pointers are welcome.
Thanks,
Jason
Hi Jason,
not that I kno
On 08.08.2012 20:56, Bing Hua wrote:
Not quite understand but I'd explain the problem I had. The response would
contain only fields and a list of field values that match the query.
Essentially it's querying for field values rather than documents. The
underlying use case would be, when typing in a
On 10.08.2012 04:42, Jason Axelson wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the information. Unfortunately I'm having a hard time
finding any servlet containers that can serve over a unix domain
socket. Also it looks like EmbeddedSolr won't work since I am not
writing the application in Java (it's in Ruby
Hi all,
I have a field with some kind of category tree as a string. The format
is like this:
"prefix>first>second#prefix>otherfirst>othersecond"
So, the document is categorized in two categories, separated by '#', and
all categories start with the same prefix which I don't want to use.
F
ercasing
> etc. See:
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters
>
> <http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters>HTH
> Erick
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Michael Kuhlmann <
> michael.kuhlm...@zalando.de> wrote:
>
Hi Erick,
On 03/12/10 17:09, Erick Erickson wrote:
> << of my fields does not have any analyzers defined at all, and it's
> working fine without problems.>>>
>
> Field or fieldType?
...one of my fields with a fieldtype that does not have any analyzer
defined at all, ... ;-)
>
> << So, it must
Hi,
I have some fields that are only used for faceting, so they're only
queried by facet results. No modification is needed, no lowercase,
nothing. So the KeywordTokenizerFactory seems to be perfect for them.
Alas, when the value contains spaces, I'm still getting too many
results. I have a field
On 03/12/10 17:51, Ahmet Arslan wrote:
>
>>
>> try using Parenthesis with queries that contain more than
>> one term. &fq=label:(Aces+of+London)
>> Otherwise
>> jumps
>> in.
>
> defaultSearchField stuff is correct but I just realized that you need to use
> quotes in your case. Because query p
On 03/15/10 08:56, Shalin Shekhar Mangar wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:12 AM, blargy wrote:
>
>>
>> How would I go about splitting a column by a certain delimiter AND ignore
>> all
>> empty matches.
[...]
> You will probably have to write a custom Transformer to remove empty values.
> See ht
On 03/19/10 11:18, muneeb wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have indexed almost 7 million articles on two separate cores, each with
> their own conf/ and data/ folder, i.e. they have their individual index.
>
> What I normally do is, use core0 for querying and core1 for any updates and
> once updates are fin
Hi,
the problem is not the GET request type, the problem is that you build a
far too complicated query. This won't scale very much and looks rather
weird.
Why don't you just add all parent category ids to every document at
index time? Then you could simply filter your request with the topmost
cat
You need to change the way how your data is imported. Or look for an
alternative how to build your query. It depends on your data model, and
your import mechanism.
Do your really have hundreds of categories?
BTW, "childs" is amusing! ;-)
-Michael
Am 13.04.2010 14:12, schrieb stockii:
>
> hi. t
Hi,
Am 13.04.2010 14:52, schrieb stockii:
> some cat, have 300 child-categories.
And that's the reason why you shouldn't add them all to your filter query.
> or, how can i import the cat-data ?
Again: How do you do it NOW?
-Michael
I wouldn't do autosuggestion with normal queries anyway. Because of
better performance... :-)
I don't use DIH, so I can't tell what to do then. For us, we import data
with a simple PHP script, which was rather easy to write. So we have
full control on Solr's data structure. You somehow have to add
Am 15.04.2010 17:45, schrieb Shawn Heisey:
> Is it possible to turn off request logging for some handlers?
> Specifically, I'd like to stop logging requests to /admin/ping and
> /replication, which get hit very often.
>
Hi,
you can set logging for nearly every single task here:
http://:/solr/ad
Am 19.04.2010 16:09, schrieb stockii:
> so i want to see how it is indexed.
>
>
Go to the admin panel, open the schema browser, and set the number of
shown tokens to 1 or something.
-Michael
Am 19.04.2010 16:29, schrieb stockii:
>
> oha, yes thx but
>
> we have 800 000 items ... to find the right in this way ? XD
Then use the TermsComponent: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/TermsComponent
-Michael
Nice site. Really!
In addition to Dave:
How do I search with tags enabled?
If I search for "Blog", I can see that there's one blog software written
in Java. When I click on the Java tag, then my search is discarded, and
I get all Java software. when I do my search again, the tag filter is
lost. It
Am 03.05.2010 16:43, schrieb Jan Kammer:
> Hi,
>
> It worked fine with a normal field. There must something wrong with
> copyfield, or why does dataimporthandler add/update no more documents?
Did you define your destination field as multivalue?
-Michael
Am 03.05.2010 23:32, schrieb Satish Kumar:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone give clues on how to implement this feature? This is a very
> important requirement for us, so any help is greatly appreciated.
>
Hi,
I just implemented exactly this feature. You need to patch Solr to make
this work.
We at Zaland
Am 18.05.2010 16:54, schrieb Ahmet Arslan:
>> 2. Query=rock where bitrate<128 where it should return
>> only first and third docs where bitrate<128
>
> &q=rock&fq:bitrate:[* TO 128] for this bitrate field must be tint type.
>
&q=rock&fq:bitrate:[* TO 127] would be better, because bitrate should
Am 31.05.2010 11:50, schrieb olivier sallou:
> Hi,
> I have created in index with several fields.
> If I query my index in the admin section of solr (or via http request), I
> get results for my search if I specify the requested field:
> Query: note:Aspergillus (look for "Aspergillus" in field "
Am 31.05.2010 12:36, schrieb olivier sallou:
> Is there any way to query all fields including dynamic ones?
Yes, using the *:term query. (Please note that the asterisk should not
be quoted.)
To answer your question, we need more details on your Solr
configuration, esp. the part of schema.xml that
Am 02.06.2010 16:13, schrieb Paul Libbrecht:
> Is your server Linux?
> In this case this is very normal.. any java application spawns many new
> processes on linux... it's not exactly bound to threads unfortunately.
Uh, no. New threads in Java typically don't spawn new processes on OS level.
I ne
Am 02.06.2010 16:15, schrieb Jörg Agatz:
> yes i done.. but i dont know how i get the information out of the big
> Array...
They're simply the keys of a single response array.
Am 02.06.2010 16:39, schrieb Paul Libbrecht:
> This is impressive, I had this in any Linux I've been using: SuSE,
> Ubuntu, Debian, Mandrake, ...
> Maybe there's some modern JDK with a modern Linux where it doesn't happen?
> It surely is not one process per thread though.
I'm not a linux thread ex
Am 02.06.2010 16:42, schrieb Jörg Agatz:
> i don't understand what you mean!
>
Then you should ask more precisely.
The only solution without "doing any custom work" would be to perform a
normal query for each suggestion. But you might get into performance
troubles with that, because suggestions are typically performed much
more often than complete searches.
The much faster solution that needs own work would be
Am 03.06.2010 13:02, schrieb Andrzej Bialecki:
> ..., and deploy this
> index in a separate JVM (to benefit from other CPUs than the one that
> runs your Solr core)
Every known webserver ist multithreaded by default, so putting different
Solr instances into different JVMs will be of no use.
-Mich
Am 03.06.2010 16:45, schrieb Andrzej Bialecki:
> You are right to a certain degree. Still, there are some contention
> points in Lucene/Solr, how threads are allocated on available CPU-s, and
> how the heap is used, which can make a two-JVM setup perform much better
> than a single-JVM setup given
Hi Sergio,
alas that's not possible that way. If you search for CENTURY BANCORP,
INC., then Solr will be totally happy to find all these terms in "NEW
CENTURY BANCORP, INC." and return it with a high score.
But you can prepare your data at index time. Make it a multivalued field
of type string or
First, you might want to index, but what Solr is executing here is a
search request.
Second, you're querying for a dynamic field "*" which is not defined in
your schema. This is quite obvious, the exception says right this.
So whatever is sending the query (some client, it seems) is doing the
wro
p you better when you pass the full query string (if you're
able to fetch it).
-Michael
Am 09.01.2018 um 16:38 schrieb Michael Kuhlmann:
> First, you might want to index, but what Solr is executing here is a
> search request.
>
> Second, you're querying for a dynamic fiel
Hi Sushant,
while this is true in general, it won't hold here. If you split your
index, searching on each splitted shard might be a bit faster, but
you'll increase search time much more because Solr needs to send your
search queries to all shards and then combine the results. So instead of
having
101 - 150 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
