Hi,
Is it possible to collapse the results from multiple fields?
Rih
: Is it possible to get the matching terms from your query for each document
: returned without using highlighting.
...
: I was told this is possible using Term Vectors. I have not been able to find
I'm not 100% familiar with the TermVectorComponent, but as i understand it
it gives you b
: > Why wouldn't you just query the function directly and leave out the *:* ?
:
: *:* was just a quick example, I might have other constant score queries, but I
: guess I probably could do a filter query plus the function query, too.
I guess i don't udnerstand what your point was ... you mention
: When using SolrJ I've realized document dates are being modified according
: to the environment UTC timezone. The timezone is being set in the inner
: class ISO8601CanonicalDateFormat of DateField class.
The dates aren't "modified" based on UTC, they are formated in UTC before
being written to
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Joe Calderon wrote:
> hello *, i was just reading over the wiki function query page and
> found this little gem for boosting recent docs thats much better than
> what i was doing before
>
> recip(ms(NOW,mydatefield),3.16e-11,1,1)
Thanks, it's pretty new (like 2 or
Congratulations on thisWhat dotnet library did you use? We are also
using solr in our windows2003/C# environment but currently simply use HTTP
to query and the Dataimport handler to update the indices...
- Bill
--
From: "Robert Petersen"
S
hello *, i was just reading over the wiki function query page and
found this little gem for boosting recent docs thats much better than
what i was doing before
recip(ms(NOW,mydatefield),3.16e-11,1,1)
my question is, at the bottom it says
The most effective way to use such a boost is to multiply
Hmm - yeah - coming at that a bit from the Lucene perspective - you
wouldn't want it cached. For a ton of clauses like that, a filter can
outperform a booleanquery on a large index in certain cases (an uncached
filter). And doesn't suffer from having to mess with the max clause
setting. Thats part
Is a filter really appropriate in this case? These types of condition would
never get re-used - they would be unique to each search performed by users in
our application.
Is there any performance benefit to the filter aside from caching (which
wouldn't do much for us anyway)?
-Original
Giovanni Fernandez-Kincade wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm trying to perform a search against an integer field with a ton of OR
> statements for each of the unique values that I want to search for. I pasted
> an example at the bottom of this email. Solr fires back the following error:
> org.apache.lucene.quer
Hi,
I'm trying to perform a search against an integer field with a ton of OR
statements for each of the unique values that I want to search for. I pasted an
example at the bottom of this email. Solr fires back the following error:
org.apache.lucene.queryParser.ParseException: Cannot parse .. ': t
: I am pretty sure the url is no problem. The query syntax has a
: problem, so it returns 400. I just want to grab that value.
When Solr encounters an error, it returns the status code and error
message w/o specifying any sort of error page. The servlet container
(jetty, resin, tomcat, etc...)
: >/select?q=your+main+query&fq=id:(1+2+3+40+51+56)
: ok, that's good to know.. I'll figure out how to force the API to get that,
: at the moment accept RANGE and OR as filter query..but I'm not sure how it
: process them..
: I'll check the methods .. (and maybe the OR is converted to + like
Hi,
When using SolrJ I've realized document dates are being modified according
to the environment UTC timezone. The timezone is being set in the inner
class ISO8601CanonicalDateFormat of DateField class.
I've read some posts where people say Solr should be most locale and culture
agnostic. So, wh
On Oct 22, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: As a workaround, I can do: *:*^0 _val_:price_f, which gets rid of
the query
: norm factor.
:
: I realize I could override the similarity or use the workaround,
but I was
: just curious about what other people think of this.
Why wouldn'
hossman wrote:
>
> If you just want the full input string passed to the analyzer of each qf
> field, then you just need to quote the entire string (or escape every
> shitespace charter in the string with a backslash) so that the entire
> input is considered one chunk -- but then you don't ge
2009/10/22 Chris Hostetter
>
> : I need to submit a query to a subset of documents which id belong to an
> : array of ids that I want to pass as parameter.
> :
> : for istance, something like:
> :
> : find_by_solr(query, id:[1,2,3,40,51,56])
>
> i don't know anything baout the acts_as_solr API, b
: I need to submit a query to a subset of documents which id belong to an
: array of ids that I want to pass as parameter.
:
: for istance, something like:
:
: find_by_solr(query, id:[1,2,3,40,51,56])
i don't know anything baout the acts_as_solr API, but you should be able
to do this using a "
: Thank you for the the explanation.
:
: Let's say product_name_un is not untokenized, but it is tokenized with:
:
: and the user enters "blue car, big wheels".
Which tokenizer are we talking about? the index or query?
: with greater boost factor for product_name_un. So that if there are produ
: As a workaround, I can do: *:*^0 _val_:price_f, which gets rid of the query
: norm factor.
:
: I realize I could override the similarity or use the workaround, but I was
: just curious about what other people think of this.
Why wouldn't you just query the function directly and leave out the *:*
Hi everybody,
I have a prototype Solr schema defining a couple of dynamic fields
pattern. With my usage of Solr, new dynamic fields can be added at any time.
What I want to do is to be able to search over all fields of my schema
(dynamic and not). Since the application layer doesn't know what
> As far as I've been able to dig up, there is no way to use
> nested phrases in
> Solr, let alone with proximity. For instance ""a b" c
> d"~10. I've seen a
> special Surround Query Parser in Lucene that appears to
> support this.
>
> Am I missing something? Any clues anybody?
I had a need for n
On Thursday 22 October 2009 11:25:20 am AHMET ARSLAN wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm having a slight problem with date searching...
> > I have a document indexed with a date type using the value
> > "2007-07-07T00:00:00Z".
> > However, when searching - the parser doesn't seem to like
> > this.
> > How shoul
> Hi,
> I'm having a slight problem with date searching...
> I have a document indexed with a date type using the value
> "2007-07-07T00:00:00Z".
> However, when searching - the parser doesn't seem to like
> this.
> How should I be able to search for it?
>
> In the select query searching for
> "Da
Hello,
As far as I've been able to dig up, there is no way to use nested phrases in
Solr, let alone with proximity. For instance ""a b" c d"~10. I've seen a
special Surround Query Parser in Lucene that appears to support this.
Am I missing something? Any clues anybody?
Thanks in advance, bye,
J
Hi,
I'm having a slight problem with date searching...
I have a document indexed with a date type using the value
"2007-07-07T00:00:00Z".
However, when searching - the parser doesn't seem to like this.
How should I be able to search for it?
In the select query searching for "Date:2007-07-07T00:00
Thanks.
I am pretty sure the url is no problem. The query syntax has a
problem, so it returns 400. I just want to grab that value.
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:50 AM, James liu wrote:
> Are you sure the url is correct?
>
>
> --
> regards
> j.L ( I live in Shanghai, China)
>
thanks
- "Noble Paul നോബിള് नोब्ळ्" a écrit :
| yes
|
| On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:38 PM, wrote:
| > at SolrJ wiki page :
| http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solrj#EmbeddedSolrServer
| >
| > "CommonsHttpSolrServer is thread-safe and if you are using the
| following constructor,
| > you *MUST* re
2009/10/22 Erik Hatcher
> There is a DirectoryFactory in Solr that could be used to make Lucene's
> RAMDirectory. But then you'd have to reindex everything when restarting
> Solr. Doesn't seem to make much practical sense to use it, not even for
> performance reasons thanks to Lucene and Solr b
There is a DirectoryFactory in Solr that could be used to make
Lucene's RAMDirectory. But then you'd have to reindex everything when
restarting Solr. Doesn't seem to make much practical sense to use it,
not even for performance reasons thanks to Lucene and Solr both
caching what they need
yes
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:38 PM, wrote:
> at SolrJ wiki page : http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solrj#EmbeddedSolrServer
>
> "CommonsHttpSolrServer is thread-safe and if you are using the following
> constructor,
> you *MUST* re-use the same instance for all requests. ..."
>
> But is it the same
Does exit a corrispondence for the Lucene Ram Index in Solr?
if yes, how can I use it?
(do you think it fits even in acts_as_solr for Rails?)
thanks
Andrea
at SolrJ wiki page : http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solrj#EmbeddedSolrServer
"CommonsHttpSolrServer is thread-safe and if you are using the following
constructor,
you *MUST* re-use the same instance for all requests. ..."
But is it the same for EmbeddedSolrServer ?
Best regards
Jean-François
Are you sure the url is correct?
--
regards
j.L ( I live in Shanghai, China)
34 matches
Mail list logo
