Is there an easy way of enabling this feature on a stock build of solr 1.4 /
1.4.1 ? would very much like to incorporate it without having
to carry over all the solr 4.0 trunk..
Thanks
Adam
> field collapsing does not fall in this category.
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Grant Ingersoll
> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:42 PM, Adam H. wrote:
> >
> >> Is there an easy way of enabling this feature on a stock build of solr
> 1.4 / 1.4.1
Hey,
I'm trying to use the lucene FieldCache for some custom field collapsing
implementation: basically i'm collapsing on a non-stored field,
and so am using the fieldcache to retrieve field value instances during run.
I noticed I'm getting some OOM's after deploying it, and after looking into
it
nk
and use that as basis for example I'd go ahead and do that.
Q - does the field collapse componet expect the field to collapse on to be
stored? or does it also try to use field cache trickery?
Thanks,
Adam
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:12
the ValueSource supposed to take care of access to
underlying field?
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Adam H. wrote:
> > Hey Yonik.
> > Thanks for clarifying.
> > The reason I went rolling my own way - I asked prev
010 at 4:02 PM, Yonik Seeley
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Adam H. wrote:
> >> Fair enough - I might give it a shot if most functionality is compatible
> to
> >> solr 1.4.1 to your mind? and is fairly stable?
> >
> > Yes, the external AP
field:
// reader.document(docId).get(fieldName)
??
}
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Adam H. wrote:
> > In other words, using a per-segment fieldcache collection as a
> > post-processing step (e.g after Qu
to use an index-wide one,
as long as I can guarantee thats the only use case for this field in the
fieldcache.. is this correct?
Thanks again for helping me out with this delicate subject :)
Adam
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Adam H. wrote:
> ah! so just so I can get cracking on th
