Too much here to reply to all the points at once... but I'll take a
stab at some of them.
- maven directory in the binary release - that was a mistake/bug -
has been fixed in build.xml
- I'm definitely for separate source and binary releases - makes so
much more sense post merge.
solr's src is
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
The number of lucene jars included in the release is also odd -- they
are embedded in the solr.war obviously, but not included anywhere else.
so people wanting to do something like use apache-solr-core-3.1.0.jar to
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
The number of lucene jars included in the release is also odd -- they
are embedded in the solr.war obviously, but not included
I'm trying to fix the solr javadoc targets.
I just noticed that it looks like we have a double-copy of the solr
javadoc too - I'll
try and fix that while I'm in there.
Overall I think things are looking pretty good - if anyone wants to review/fix
things, please run ant package and check the
OK, things are looking good.
I fixed many of the issues that Hoss pointed out (well, the ones I
agreed with at least).
The only remaining 3.1 issue is
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2960
Hopefully that can be done quickly and then we can cut another release
candidate (I'll
It looks like a documentation bug (i.e. an example that no longer
works due to a schema change?)
So we should change _t to be multiValued, or add a new multiValued
dynamic text field.
I just verified this also happens with 1.4
I know that there are some parts in solr-cell that catenate values if
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
Any opinions on this?
I've been focused on getting this 3.1 release out (reviewing/fixing
docs, packaging, etc).
I'm not sure about Object... does that mean most FieldTypes would be
doing instanceof checks?
-Yonik
Here's a new release candidate:
http://people.apache.org/~yonik/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.1RC1
This candidate is *not* expected to pass, given we have an open blocker:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2960
This is just to make it easier for everyone to review the current
state of
, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:05 AM, gsing...@apache.org wrote:
Added: lucene/dev/trunk/solr/lib/servlet-api-NOTICE.txt
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/dev/trunk/solr/lib/servlet-api-NOTICE.txt?rev=1082520view=auto
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
[javadoc]
/home/hossman/tmp/lucene3.1rc/3.1.rc1/s-src-tgz/apache-solr-3.1.0/solr/src/java/org/apache/solr/schema/IndexSchema.java:105:
warning - Tag @link: can't find IndexSchema(SolrConfig, String,
InputStream)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
%% diff -r s-bin-tgz/apache-solr-3.1.0/ s-src-tgz/apache-solr-3.1.0/solr/
Binary files
s-bin-tgz/apache-solr-3.1.0/contrib/analysis-extras/lucene-libs/lucene-icu-3.1.0.jar
and
IMO, I think our source release should be what you get when you do a
checkout from SVN.
Building from source is more expert level, and one needs (minimally) ant set up.
If I do another RC, I'm half-way convinced I should just do an svn
export and tar it up. No .zip... anyone handling a source
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
by thta same rationale, we don't need to include javadocs in any release,
because you could always find them online (and if i wanted to be snarky:
you could always go find the java source itself online too)
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
* CHANGES.txt has a 1.4.2-dev section listing bug fixes ... as if that
were a release after 1.4.1 and before the current 3.1 release.
A 1.4.2 release in development, yes. That's the earliest point that
the bug was
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:18 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: A 1.4.2 release in development, yes. That's the earliest point that
: the bug was fixed, and someone
: upgrading from 1.4.1 should look at everything after the 1.4.1 release.
that makes no sense to me. even
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: I spent this morning reviewing the Solr tgz artifacts (will look at hte
: lucene ones after lunch). Notes so far...
Lucene Artifacts...
# General concerns
As mentioned before, there are a bunch
Please vote to release the artifacts at
http://people.apache.org/~yonik/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.1RC2
as Lucene 3.1 and Solr 3.1
Thanks for everyone's help pulling all this together!
-Yonik
http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May
25-26, San Francisco
I took a look through the New features section of CHANGES and
took a shot at what we could put on the lucene website:
March 2011, Lucene 3.1 available
This release contains numerous bug fixes, optimizations, and
improvements , including:
- Improved Unicode support, including Unicode 4
-
Currently, supplying a filter to IndexSearcher.search() assumes that
it's cheaper to run than the main query.
We should add the following method to IndexSearcher:
public void search(Query query, Filter beforeFilter, Filter
afterFilter, Collector results)
beforeFilter would be skipped first
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
Currently, supplying a filter to IndexSearcher.search() assumes that
it's cheaper to run than the main query.
Wait, where do
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Robert Muir (JIRA) j...@apache.org wrote:
I don't really think things like this (queries etc) should go into just Solr
I disagree strongly with the sentiment that queries don't belong in Solr.
Everything developed in/for lucene need not be exported to Solr
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 9:48 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Robert Muir (JIRA) j...@apache.org wrote:
I don't really think things like this (queries etc) should go into just Solr
I disagree
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Robert Muir (JIRA) j...@apache.org wrote:
I don't really think things like this (queries etc) should go
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 7:32 AM, Robert Muir (JIRA) j
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the question is: what justification is there for adding spatial
support to solr-only, leaving lucene with a broken contrib module,
versus adding it where it belongs and exposing it to solr?
There need not be any
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the question is: what justification is there for adding spatial
support to solr-only, leaving lucene with a broken contrib module,
versus adding it where it belongs and exposing it to solr?
There need not be any
Here's what I had added to the news section on the solr site (which
was just additions/edits to what Robert first added):
titleMarch 2011 - Solr 3.1 Released/title
p
Solr 3.1 has been released and is now available for public a
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Smiley, David W. dsmi...@mitre.org wrote:
Also, I would include a note at the lead-in of the Solr section on the
rationale of the version number.
+1
-Yonik
http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May
25-26, San Francisco
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: On IRC, yonik suggested that the explain format should mimic follow what
: the debugQuery parameter would use.
:
: I'm don't really agree -- long term I would even suggest dropping the
: explain section from
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
And I'm still on the fence - _explain_ alone does not justify a whole
new syntax IMO... so we may need more usecase examples to figure out
what problem we're actually trying to solve.
The key use case I am thinking of
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
I was trying to think up what other real use cases actually where...
because that really does have a bearing on if a new syntax should be
developed, and what that syntax should look like.
The use cases I can think of
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
Another key example would be inline highlighting:
id,_hl:title_,body
If we're going to come up with another syntax, it needs to be fully fleshed
out.
This one already looks ambiguous in the context of fl.
For
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
more complex details would be handled via standard parameters -- for
highlighting, we would use the existing parameters to setup the
highlighter.
fl=id,[hl:title],[hl:body]hl.fragsize=100
We could even use the standard
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
These messages are now logged on every request, even if no transformer or
globs are used in the fl.
seems like this should be a DEBUG message at best?
Yep, I had added that to my patch as debugging only (and I
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jan Høydahl jan@cominvent.com wrote:
Testing the new Solr 3.1 release under Windows XP and Java 1.6.0_23
When trying to post example\exampledocs\gb18030-example.xml using post.jar I
get this error:
% java -jar post.jar gb18030-example.xml
jar
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Jan Høydahl jan@cominvent.com wrote:
Testing the new Solr 3.1 release under Windows XP and Java 1.6.0_23
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
I'm confused ... this isn't a troubleshooting page, it's a request for
help diagnosing an error -- there's no tips/tricks/advice here, just
someone getting confused between solr.xml and tomcat context files.
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote:
Hi Jan,
Regarding the WindowsXP VMmware I was using, it had a Sun JRE (not JDK)
which was auto-updated from 1.5 to 1.6.
After completely uninstalling Java and re-installing jdk-6u24-windows-
i586.exe the GB18030 encoding
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Grant Ingersoll
grant.ingers...@gmail.com wrote:
By all means go for it. I don't see any reason not too. I guess in the end,
I'm not sure what you are asking us to do. Do you want Lucene/Solr to remove
all of our spatial support in favor of incorporating
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Grant Ingersoll
grant.ingers...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Smiley, David W. wrote:
with its replacement being an externally hosted ASL-licened module expressly
designed to work with Lucene/Solr 4.0 and beyond (temporarily known as
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 5:13 PM, yo...@apache.org wrote:
Author: yonik
Date: Fri Apr 15 21:13:42 2011
New Revision: 1092812
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1092812view=rev
Log:
SOLR-2469: remove saveCommitPoint for replicate on startup
Oops... this obviously got my work-in-progress
FYI, my ant-hacking attempts have failed to keep the license code from
checking the bdb stuff, so my next try is to just put in fake
license/notice files.
-Yonik
http://www.lucenerevolution.org -- Lucene/Solr User Conference, May
25-26, San Francisco
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Apache
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Kiko Aumond k...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Hi
I am new to the list and relatively new to SOLR. I am working on a tool for
updating indexes directly through EmbeddedSolrServer thus eliminating the
need for sending potentially large documents over HTTP.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Kiko Aumond k...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Yes, I've seen that page, but I went a bit beyond the material there, as the
code I wrote is able to set parameters such as separators, encapsulators and
the index columns, whether to split parameters, auto-commit as well as
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Kiko Aumond k...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Yes, this is a CSV Loader. This looks like one of those cases where there
are many ways to handle 90% of the requirements but none that solves 100% of
the problem. Which is why the CSV loader also almost solves the problem,
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears there are some problems with modularization of the code,
especially between lucene and solr, so I would like for us to have a
discussion on this thread.
The specifics of each case matter of course.
As a general
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
Why impose namespace restrictions based on where code was originally
committed? I think the namespace of refactored code should reflect
the nature of the code, not its original origins?
And if it's a very
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
Why impose namespace restrictions based
2011/5/19 Yury Kats yuryk...@yahoo.com:
I'm curious to know whether Distributed Indexing is on the roadmap for 4.0.
Looking at JIRA and past dev list discussions, there seem to have been
efforts around DI in the past, but no recent activity.
Is this being worked on, postponed or deemed not
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Please vote to release the artifacts at http://s.apache.org/lusolr32rc2 as
3.2.0
+1, nice job!
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Changes from rc1 are mostly packaging issues that testers found:
* SOLR-2557
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
With the DocTransformer stuff in place, we should be able to return
the shard info with the documents. (like SOLR-705)
I see two options:
1. Each server adds its own ID to the documents -- I like this
approach, but (as
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eric Pugh
ep...@opensourceconnections.com wrote:
Seems like the documentation for PatternReplaceFilterFactory should be added
to this wiki page?
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters?#TokenFilterFactories
Is there a desire for this
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
I think this has been around forever (I'm seeing it in 1.4.1 too), but
I just happened to notice it. If you comment out the arr
name=queries section in firstSearcher, you get an NPE as below:
Any reason I shouldn't
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar
shalinman...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
What is the status for automatic master failover (leader election) in
SolrCloud? Is there an issue open? I'm interested in this and I've some time
to take it up.
Awesome! I'm hoping to find time next
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Stefan Trcek wzzelfz...@abas.de wrote:
Hallo
I can donate our facette module to the lucene project.
Sounds interesting Stefan!
The implementation relies on field cache only, no index scheme, no
cached filters etc. It is small (about 600 lines of code in 10
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Chris Male (JIRA) j...@apache.org wrote:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3232?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Chris Male updated LUCENE-3232:
---
Description:
Solr
I just took a quick peek at the prevBitSet, and the implementation
looks buggy (provided that it's legal for a user to pass an i that
may be greater than the largest bit ever set).
Here is the current code, which will cause an exception when wlen==0.
public int prevSetBit(int index) {
if
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
All that needs to be done is to move the negative index check to the
bottom (the first index0 is not needed since we do a signed shift).
public int prevSetBit(int index) {
int i = index6;
if (i = wlen
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote:
Hi Yonik, I wrote atestcase that checks how prevSetBit behaves, if I add you
patch with optimization. It still had a bug, if the index is beyond last
word but not at a multiple of bitsPerWord.
Ahh, right, good catch! You
+1, never thought I'd see the day ;-)
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Simon Willnauer
simon.willna...@googlemail.com wrote:
This issue has been discussed on various occasions and lately on
LUCENE-3239 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-3239)
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote:
- Extracted Lucene and Solr binary packages and checked contents for
completeness (Licenses, Javadocs,...) - fine! Solr.WAR file contains correct
artifact versions, unfortunately the lucene jar files are not available in
+1
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Artifacts here:
http://s.apache.org/lusolr330rc1
working release notes here:
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote33
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote33
To see
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Bill Bell billnb...@gmail.com wrote:
I meant FC insanity. It does not appear to be an NPE.
That's natural, and not a bug. Grouping always uses per-segment field
cache entries, where faceting sometimes uses top level field caches.
-Yonik
I just noticed that CloudStateUpdateTest consistently generates the
following log message:
SEVERE: Too many close [count:-1] on
org.apache.solr.core.SolrCore@5dedb45. Please report this exception to
solr-u...@lucene.apache.org
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll fix the test cleanup.
Or you will beat me to it - conflicts!
Heh, I should have just looked at the test first... it was easier than
I thought.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
And if you forget to re-index (like I did) you will see an exception
looking like this:
Caused by: java.lang.NullPointerException
at
org.apache.lucene.index.codecs.BlockTermsReader.init(BlockTermsReader.java:139)
at
Since this is a fix to a released version, we should probably have a
CHANGES entry?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:17 PM, m...@apache.org wrote:
Author: mvg
Date: Tue Jul 12 20:17:37 2011
New Revision: 1145748
URL:
I think our normal practice has been to include people who have
actually contributed patches/code or substantial design.
Not sure if we want to change that practice or not - just relaying
what has been the norm.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:58 PM,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
I try to credit whoever raised the bug even if they don't make a
patch, test case, etc.
The effort to find, characterize, report a bug back to us is sizable
and people should be given credit for that, I
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Erick Erickson
erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
This is even a question? It costs nothing to mention the person who
brought up the bug (well, OK, the time to type the name)
It was merely a question of consistency, and I think that question has
now been answered.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Yongtao Liu y...@commvault.com wrote:
I was wondering why SolrQueryParser set it to false by default?
That allows one to handle both lowercased and non-lowercased fields -
the client must match the case, but at least it's possible.
If it's true, then it becomes
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Steven A Rowe sar...@syr.edu wrote:
Yeah, almost certainly.
All Lucene/Solr tests succeeded for me locally before I committed, though,
via 'ant clean test' at the top level.
I just tried 3x, and ant test from the solr directory failed for me too.
-Yonik
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Uwe Schindler u...@thetaphi.de wrote:
Hm,
seems my fix improved the test, but not fixed this problem.
This is a new test I just wrote... I'll see if I can reproduce it by
cranking up the number of operations.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Hmmm, well this is odd. After the last fix, I changed the 1
operations to 10M and ran the test a few times.
I'll crank it up even further and let the test run for a few hours.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Apache Jenkins Server
another version of the test that doesn't use Solr classes
and was able to reproduce it. I'll check it in shortly.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
Hmmm, well this is odd. After the last fix, I changed
Caused by: java.io.IOException: Cannot create directory:
/usr/home/hudson/hudson-slave/workspace/Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x/checkout/solr/example/multicore/core1/data/index
at
org.apache.lucene.store.SimpleFSLock.obtain(SimpleFSLockFactory.java:121)
at
Message-
From: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik
Seeley
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 11:49 AM
To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 9905 -
Failure
Caused by: java.io.IOException: Cannot create directory:
/usr
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On trunk currently, it looks like the following data directories
(outside of /build) are used by the tests:
./core/src/test-files/solr/data
./example/multicore/core0/data
./example/multicore/core1/data
Not sure
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 2:47 PM, eks dev eks...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Assuming there are no deletes, would the following work as a way to load
*last added document*, surviving optimize as well?
Order of documentId-s in Lucene survives optimize as far as I remember?
No longer... the default merge
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:49 PM, eks dev eks...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Just a casual comment..
This issue marks another big milestone in solr/lucene evolution, it
moves into new direction of being not only search library, but rather
full data storage/manipulation solution. Who needs sql and nosql
Looks like the same SOLR-2732, and with jrockit again. Have we seen
this happen with other JVMs?
I've been running the tests in a loop for a few hours - no hangs yet.
It also looks like it's in DistributedSpellCheckComponentTest again (I
think we can only tell what test failed here by the stack
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Jan Høydahl jan@cominvent.com wrote:
Hi,
Can you explain the wanted functional result of your copy operation? I've
done copying fields in processors without trouble.
What do you want to do with the Lucene Document?
Indeed - I've started going in the
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov wrote:
I'm left with childrenshospitallosangeles as a single token resultant from
the chain.
So, when I go to sort the titles in Solr, I use sort=title_sort asc, and I am
getting all kinds of weird
Are you able to share the source code for this CombiningFilter?
This sounds like it should be a relatively simple filter.
-Yonik
http://www.lucene-eurocon.com - The Lucene/Solr User Conference
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
I'm wondering if we shouldn't ditch the new term partition here and
just use replica?
In the past, we've sort of used shard to mean both a single physical
index, and the logical piece of the larger collection. In practice,
this ambiguity normally isn't much of a problem as it's normally clear
by
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:12 PM, mikemcc...@apache.org wrote:
+* LUCENE-3418: Lucene was failing to fsync index files on commit,
+ meaning a crash or power loss could easily corrupt the index (Mark
+ Miller, Robert Muir, Mike McCandless)
Perhaps crash should be expanded to operating system
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Simon Willnauer
simon.willna...@googlemail.com wrote:
wow - from you last comment on SOLR-2700 this commit comes kid of
unexpected.
I did say in the previous comment OK, I think we're getting close to
committing now.
Then I found a bug. Then I fixed it and
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Simon Willnauer
simon.willna...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't think this needs to be a core feature at all but I think we need
to provide the necessary hooks in Lucene core to make this reliable
and consistent.
I've thought about it a little - it would be really
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
Returning a long seqID seems the least invasive change to make this
total ordering possible? Especially since the DWDQ already computes
this order...
+1
This seems like the most powerful option.
-Yonik
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
Please vote to release the RC1 artifacts at:
https://people.apache.org/~mikemccand/staging_area/lucene-solr-3.4.0-RC1-rev1167142
as Lucene 3.4.0 and Solr 3.4.0.
+1
-Yonik
http://www.lucene-eurocon.com -
Hmmm, this is strange.
Looking into it...
-Yonik
http://lucidimagination.com
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:54 PM, jenk...@sd-datasolutions.de wrote:
See
http://jenkins.sd-datasolutions.de/job/Lucene-Solr-trunk-Windows-Java7-64/80/changes
Changes:
[yonik] SOLR-3469: prevent false peersync
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
Hmmm, this is strange.
Looking into it...
Oops, spoke too soon. At a glance I mistook the list of file changes
for the list of failed tests
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I can tell, this appears to perhaps be a windows issue with
replication - if the logged errors are involved, it's not finding a file to
copy that it's expecting to find. Search me as to why. Certainly seems
Congrats Adrien!
-Yonik
http://lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
I'm pleased to announce that Adrien Grand has joined our ranks as a
committer.
He has been contributing various patches to Lucene/Solr, recently to
I just checked in a fix (hopefully) for this.
The snap puller was creating a temp directory that only used down to
seconds precision. I've changed it to milliseconds.
-Yonik
http://lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 5:40 PM, jenk...@sd-datasolutions.de wrote:
Build:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Michael McCandless
luc...@mikemccandless.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
I just checked in a fix (hopefully) for this.
The snap puller was creating a temp directory that only used down to
seconds
Welcome!
-Yonik
http://lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pleased to announce that Greg Bowyer has been added as a
Lucene/Solr committer.
Greg:
It's a tradition that you reply with a brief bio.
Your SVN access should be
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Policeman Jenkins Server
jenk...@sd-datasolutions.de wrote:
Caused by: java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 8192
at
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello: I created drafts for the 4.0-alpha release notes:
http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-java/ReleaseNote40alpha and
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/ReleaseNote40alpha
The lucene ones i did a while ago... there is an overwhelming
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
As best i can figure the current setup isn't cleaning out the index between
each of the running test methods
Yes, on purpose.
I've actually restructured how this tests works a lot more in
1 - 100 of 9422 matches
Mail list logo
