: I think there might be something wrong with the date time rounding up. I
: tried this query: q=*:*fq=listedDate:[NOW/DAY-1DAY TO *] which I think
: should return results since yesterday. So if today is 9th of August, it
: should return all results from the 8th of August. However, Solr returns
: HTTP, I tried to optimize by passing the true flag to the
: CommitUpdateCommand.
:
: When optimizing an index with Lucene directly it doubles the size of the
: index temporarily and then deletes the old segments that were optimized.
: Instead, what happened was the old segments were still
Hi All,
A bit of self-promotion again :) I hope you don't find it out of topic,
after all, some folks are using Carrot2 with Lucene and Solr, and Nutch has
a Carrot2-based clustering plugin.
Staszek
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello !Thanks Pieter,That seems a good idea - if not an ideal one - even if it
sort of an hack. I will try it as soon as possible and keep you informed.The
hl.fl parameter doesn't have to be initialized, I think, so it won't be a
problem.On the other hand, I will have the exact same problem to
Good day to you, Ryan
I see.
Thanks,
Franz
On 8/13/07, Ryan McKinley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where can I find some documentation of Solrj? Does it have a wiki page or
something?
It does not yet have good external documentation. We will definatly
have something before solr 1.3, but
On 13/08/07, Pierre-Yves LANDRON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello !Thanks Pieter,That seems a good idea - if not an ideal one - even
if it sort of an hack. I will try it as soon as possible and keep you
informed.The hl.fl parameter doesn't have to be initialized, I think, so
it won't be a
We're planning to make changes to our schema.xml file... I need to ask a
few questions
1 - if we add fields / remove fields to be indexed, how will this affect
our current indexes. Will we need to completely recreate millions on
indexes (or is it indices)?
Scenario 1a :: we've been
Hi,
The XML file to be indexed has Case Sensitive
Ex.
field name=field1Computer Software/field
I would like to have facet by field name field1 CASE SENSITIVE and search
by field1 with CASE INSENSITIVE.
If I add solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory in the analyzer in both index and
query, the query is
1 - if we add fields / remove fields to be indexed, how will this affect
our current indexes. Will we need to completely recreate millions on
indexes (or is it indices)?
Depends what you are trying to do... if you are just adding or removing
fields, the index should be usable. For
Jae Joo wrote:
Hi,
The XML file to be indexed has Case Sensitive
Ex.
field name=field1Computer Software/field
I would like to have facet by field name field1 CASE SENSITIVE and search
by field1 with CASE INSENSITIVE.
If I add solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory in the analyzer in both index and
Piete,
I tried and it doesn't work for Solr 1.1. Is it supported for 1.2 or at
all?
(Right now, I'm using a work-around by a range query for a field whose range
is known to be larger than 0.)
Thanks,
-Hui
On 8/12/07, Pieter Berkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try using q=*:* to match all
Hi All.
We're running into a problem with stemming that I can't
figure out. For example, searching for the word transit
(whether in quotes or not) returns documents with the word
transition in them.
How do I disable this? We want our engine to be as literal
as possible. If a user mis-types a
On 8/13/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All.
We're running into a problem with stemming that I can't
figure out. For example, searching for the word transit
(whether in quotes or not) returns documents with the word
transition in them.
How do I disable this? We want our
Yonik:
I only raised the question to the group after I had looked in
the schema.xml. There are a lot of comments in that file, but
they make no sense to me.
I'd appreciate some specific help on what to do...
DW
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8/13/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yonik:
I only raised the question to the group after I had looked in
the schema.xml. There are a lot of comments in that file, but
they make no sense to me.
I'd appreciate some specific help on what to do...
Every field has a fieldType.
A
You need this book:
-Original Message-
From: David Whalen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:00 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Problem with stemming
Yonik:
I only raised the question to the group after I had looked in the
schema.xml. There are
(Oops, try again.)
You need this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Lucene-Action-Erik-Hatcher/dp/1932394281/ref=pd_bbs_sr
_1/103-4871137-7111056?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1187037246sr=8-1
Lucene in Action by Eric Hatcher and Otis Gospodnetic. It does not cover
Solr really, but you will understand what
Thanks, guys. I'm sure that by the time I get the book and
learn all about Lucene the CEO of my company will have insisted
we find another search engine. But the book will look great
on my coffee table
-Original Message-
From: Lance Norskog [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Go here
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters?highlight=%28ste
mming%29#head-88cc86e4432b359030cffdb32d095062b843d4f5
Look for this
solr.PorterStemFilterFactory
On 8/13/07 1:50 PM, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, guys. I'm sure that by the time I get
So I shut it off by removing these tags from my schema.xml
file? Seems like it's this Porter thing that's messing
me up.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Mastre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:19 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problem with
On 8/13/07, David Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I shut it off by removing these tags from my schema.xml
file? Seems like it's this Porter thing that's messing
me up.
Yes. As I said in my first email, if you want very exact matching,
you may just want a whitespace tokenizer followed by a
: Message-ID:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.apache.org/~hossman/#threadhijack
When starting a new discussion on a mailing list, please do not reply to
an existing message, instead start a fresh email. Even if you change the
subject line of your email,
On 14/08/07, Ryan McKinley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 - Question about the structure of the injected xml file... does it
need to exactly match the data in solr? I know it makes sense that
we're only injecting the fields that solr needs and not excluding fields
that it needs... but how
(using last night's Solr build)
Can't seem to get this to work. I am trying to use the regex
highlighter fragment type. The docs suggest looking at the example
solrconifg.xml for a demonstration of a fragmentor that splits on
sentences. It looks like this:
str name=hl.regex.pattern[-\w
On 8/12/07, Chris Hostetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I'm having the date boosting function as well. I'm using this function:
: F = recip(rord(creationDate),1,1000,1000)^10. However, since I have around
: 10,000 of documents added in one day, rord(createDate) returns very
: different values
I am trying out the event listener by uncommenting the listener for
event postCommit unmodified. Solr detected the script during start up
(otherwise it would throw some exception). However, when i sent the
commit commend, it thrown IOException: snapshooter not found (see
snippet below). It
: I am trying out the event listener by uncommenting the listener for
: event postCommit unmodified. Solr detected the script during start up
: (otherwise it would throw some exception). However, when i sent the
no, actually the RunExecutableListener doesn't check for the scripts when
it's
Thanks for the comments, Charlie.
No, you didn't miss anything with the highlight results. It hasn't been
implemented yet. :-/
The first implementation was quite janky, and was consequently removed. I'm
adding an issue in JIRA about implementing highlighted fields. (
28 matches
Mail list logo
