I've occasionally run across people going with another search engine
because it was faster at indexing.
The example schema that people may be using as a base to do their
benchmarking (with perhaps minimal modifications) is slow.
There are many people out there that check what's fastest first, and
*
+1
I think appropriate selection of defaults, biasing for performance in
this
case, is extremely important yet often overlooked.
The out-of-the-box first-impression experience that people see, with
Solr
or Lucene, often decides whether Solr or Lucene should be considered
for an applicatio
+1
perhaps we want a "schema.xml" and a "schema-kitchen-sink.xml"
While it is good that the default is fast, we also want to make sure
everything has a functioning example somewhere.
On Mar 7, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
I've occasionally run across people going with another s
+1.
On Mar 7, 2009, at 10:12 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
I've occasionally run across people going with another search engine
because it was faster at indexing.
The example schema that people may be using as a base to do their
benchmarking (with perhaps minimal modifications) is slow.
There are ma
+1
perhaps schema.xml and schema-example.xml?
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
> I've occasionally run across people going with another search engine
> because it was faster at indexing.
> The example schema that people may be using as a base to do their
> benchmarking (with p
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1050?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Shalin Shekhar Mangar resolved SOLR-1050.
-
Resolution: Fixed
Committed revision 751374.
Thanks Akshay!
> NPE thrown in repl
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-940?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Shalin Shekhar Mangar updated SOLR-940:
---
Attachment: SOLR-940.patch
Updating javadocs to note that trie fields cannot be used in
