Ah, this makes sense. I've changed my regex to "(?m)^.*$", and it works
better, but I still get fragments before and after some returns.
Thanks for the hint!
-Pete
On Jul 8, 2010, at 6:27 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : If you can use the latest branch_3x or trunk, hl.fragListBuilder=single
Hello,
not sure if i should really send this kind of stuff to the list, but
since i guess it's only positive and someone might be interested... The
company i work at is looking for people with experience with SolR/Lucene.
Below, the offer:
http://www.infojobs.net/pozuelo-de-alarcon/programado
xD
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Alejandro Gonzalez
wrote:
> ok please don't forget it :)
>
> 2010/7/8 Ruben Abad
>
>> Jorl, ok tendré que modificar mi petición de vacaciones :(
>> Rubén Abad
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:46 PM, ZAROGKIKAS,GIORGOS <
>> g.zarogki...@multirama.gr> wrote
jarrlll
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Óscar Marín Miró
wrote:
> xD
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Alejandro Gonzalez
> wrote:
> > ok please don't forget it :)
> >
> > 2010/7/8 Ruben Abad
> >
> >> Jorl, ok tendré que modificar mi petición de vacaciones :(
> >> Rubén Abad
> >>
> >>
>
Disk full should never lead to index corruption (except for very old
versions of Lucene).
Lucene always writes (and closes) all files associated with the
segment, then fsync's them, before writing & fsync'ing the segments_N
file that refers to these files.
Can you describe in more detail the even
Dear all,
this is not a new problem, I just wanted to check whether with 1.4 there
might have been changes that allow a different approach.
In my query, I retrieve results that have a date field. I have to sort
the result by day only, then by a different string field. The time of
that date shall
[P.S. to my first post]
Further contemplating http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery.
I am using 1.4.1, the date field is configured like this:
(The schema has been created using the schema file from 1.4.0, and I
haven't changed anything when upgrading to 1.4.1. TrieDate is said to be
the de
Hi Chantal,
why dont you just add another Field to your Index where u put the Day only, you
can sort by this filed then
in your queries
cheers.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Chantal Ackermann [mailto:chantal.ackerm...@btelligent.de]
Gesendet: Freitag, 9. Juli 2010 11:45
An: solr-user@
Sorry for the pollution. Sorting by function will only be possible with
1.5.
In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1297,
Grant writes:
"""
Note, there is a temporary workaround for this: (main query)^0
func(...)
"""
Is that workaround an option for my use case?
Thanks,
Chantal
On Fri,
Hi Bastian,
that is an option but it would be more flexible to sort using a function
query.
It looks like I'll have to add that field, however. At least, for as
long as using 1.4.
Thanks,
Chantal
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 12:08 +0200, Bastian Spitzer wrote:
> Hi Chantal,
>
> why dont you just add a
Today is your last chance to submit a CFP abstract for the 2010 Surge
Scalability Conference. The event is taking place on Sept 30 and Oct 1,
2010 in Baltimore, MD. Surge focuses on case studies that address
production failures and the re-engineering efforts that led to victory
in Web Application
I've asked this question in the past without too much success. I figured I
would try to revive it.
Is there a way I can incorporate boost functions with a MoreLikeThis search?
Can it be accomplished at the MLT request handler level or would I need to
create a custom request handler which in turn
Hi,
I'm making some basic sorting (date, price, etc.) using the "sort" parameter
(sort=field+asc), and it's working fine. I'm wondering whether there's a
significant argument to use function query sorting instead of the "sort"
parameter?
Thanks,
-S
Replication does not transfer files that already exist on the slave and
have the same metadata (size, last modified, etc) as the master. As far
as deleting files, it will only do so if they do not exist on the master.
In most cases, the only way that it would delete and copy the entire
index
How would I go about setting a large number of literal values in a call to
index
a remote PDF? I'm currently calling:
http://host/solr/update/extract?literal.id=abc&literal.mycategory=blah&stream.url=http://otherhost/some/file.pdf
And that works great, except now I'm coming across usecases wh
In IRC trying to help someone find Polish-language support for Solr.
Seems lucene has nothing to offer? Found one stemmer that looks to be
compatibly licensed in case someone wants to take a shot at
incorporating it: http://www.getopt.org/stempel/
-Peter
--
Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D.
Momentum Sp
Hi Peter,
this stemmer is integrated into trunk and 3x.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/trunk/modules/analysis/stempel/
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/branches/branch_3x/lucene/contrib/analyzers/stempel/
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Peter Wolanin wrote:
> In IRC tryin
: Query: "foo bar"
: Doc1: "foo bar baz"
: Doc2: "foo bar foo bar"
:
: These two documents should be scored exactly the same. I accomplished the
: above in the "normal" query use-case by using the SweetSpotSimilarity class.
You can change this by subclassing SweetSpotSimilarity (or any Similarit
Oh.. i didnt know about the different signatures to tf. Thanks for that
clarification.
It sounds like all I need to do is actually override tf(float) in the
SweetSpotSimilarity class to delegate to baselineTF just like tf(int) does.
Is this correct?
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http
: How can I view solr docs in response writers before the response is sent
: to the client ? What I get is only DocSlice with int values having size
: equal the docs requested. All this while debugging on the
: SolrQueryResponse Object.
if you are writitng a custom ResponseWriter you can get the
: If you look at the Lucene factories, they all subclass from
: BaseTokenFilterFactory which then subclasses from
: BaseTokenStreamFactory. That last one does various things for the
: child factories (I don't know what they are).
Note also that if you really did copy the body of SynonymFilterFact
: Yes I mean HTTP-requests
: How can I log them?
it's entirely dependent on your Servlet Container (ie: jetty, tomcat,
resin, weblogic, etc...)
If you are using the example jetty provided in the solr releases (ie: java
-jar start.jar) they show up in examples/logs
-Hoss
: It sounds like all I need to do is actually override tf(float) in the
: SweetSpotSimilarity class to delegate to baselineTF just like tf(int) does.
: Is this correct?
you have to decide how you want to map the float->int (ie: round,
truncate, etc...) but otherwise: yes that should work fine.
The entire wording/phrasing of your email leads me to suspect that you are
using the example jetty server provided with solr (ie: java -jar
start.jar) and that you aren't clear on the distinction between the logs
generated by jetty and the logs generated by solr.
the simple instance of Jetty t
I'm not certain but i think what you want is something like this...
deltaQuery="select '${dataimporter.request.do_this_id}'"
deltaImportQuery="select ... from destinations
where DestID='${dataimporter.delta.id}'
"
...and then hit the handler with a URL like..
/da
(10/07/10 0:54), Saïd Radhouani wrote:
Hi,
I'm making some basic sorting (date, price, etc.) using the "sort" parameter
(sort=field+asc), and it's working fine. I'm wondering whether there's a significant argument to
use function query sorting instead of the "sort" parameter?
Thanks,
-S
: In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1297,
: Grant writes:
: """
: Note, there is a temporary workaround for this: (main query)^0
: func(...)
: """
:
: Is that workaround an option for my use case?
that would in fact be a workarround for sorting by function where the
function uses "
Yes, indeed, you understood my question. Looking forward to the next version
then.
To your reply, I'd add that _val_ is used for standard request handler, and bf
is used for dismax, right?
-S
On Jul 10, 2010, at 12:05 AM, Koji Sekiguchi wrote:
> (10/07/10 0:54), Saïd Radhouani wrote:
>> Hi,
(10/07/10 7:15), Saïd Radhouani wrote:
Yes, indeed, you understood my question. Looking forward to the next version
then.
To your reply, I'd add that _val_ is used for standard request handler, and bf
is used for dismax, right?
-S
Right.
Koji
--
http://www.rondhuit.com/en/
Hi,
Thanks a lot for your replies
Here is the exact problem I am facing right now..
I have a scheduled batch indexing happening in master every 2 days for 3
sources (Ex: s1, s2, s3) Once the batch indexing gets completed I replicate
that to slave instance for user queries.
There is one mor
POSTing the individual parameters (literal.id, literal.mycategory,
literal.mycategory) as name value pairs to 1.4's /update/extract does work. I
just realized the POST's content type hadn't been set to
'application/x-www-form-urlencoded'. Set it to that and it accepts all the
parameters.
-d
I have problems when i execute my prog on linux having this following piece of
code.
{
Document d;
Analyzer analyzer = new PorterStemAnalyzer();
System.out.println("1");
Directory index = FSDirectory.open(new File("index1"));
System.out.println("2");
IndexWriter w = new IndexWriter(index
It's possible to get near real-time adds and updates (every two
minutes in our case) with a multi-shard setup, if you have a shard
dedicated to new content and have the right combination of unique
identifiers on your data. I'll respond off-list with a full description
of my setup.
On 7/9/2
Hi Rakhi,
Sorry, I didn't see this email until just now. Did you get it working?
If not here's some things that might help.
- Download the patch first.
- Check the date on which the patch was released.
- Download the version of the trunk that existed at that date.
- Apply the patch using the p
34 matches
Mail list logo
