You cant really. By searching you allways will find _documents_, and solr will
return all their stored
fields unless you specify which exact stored fields you want solr to return by
passing "&fl=" parameter
to your query.
The only aproach i can think off is (mis)using highlighting, search for
h
If you don't mind your JSON format complying with the one Solr uses,
you could use GSON.
SolrQuery solrQuery = new SolrQuery("your query");
QueryResponse response = server.query(solrQuery);
List beans = response.getBeans(YourObject.class);
// some computing ...
GSON gson = new GSON();
String json
hi all,
i need some help in spellchecking.i configured my solrconfig and
schema by looking the usermailing list and here i give you the configuration
i made..
my schema.xml::
my solrconfig.xml:::
I need to merge multiple solr indexes into one big index. The process is
very slow. Please share any tips to speed it up. Will optimizing the indexes
before merging help?
Thanks,
Karthik
I faced this problem but can't find any good solution. But if you have
large stored field such as full text of document. If you don't store
it in lucene, it will be quicker because 2 merge indexes will force
copy all fdts into a new fdt. If you store it externally. The problem
you have to face is h
Eric,
Thank you very much for the indicators! I had a closer look at the commit
intervals and it seems that the application is gradually increasing the commits
to almost once per second after some time - something that was hidden in the
massive amount of queries in the log file. I have changed
Hi all,
We're building a service which will have data from a number of
different providers, but the data from each will be slightly
different. We've decided to keep the data separate by using multiple
cores in Solr; one for each provider. There will be enough overlap in
the data to allow
Hi,
We have a database that has numeric values for some columns, which
correspond to text values in drop-downs on a website. We need to
index both the numeric and text equivalents into Solr, and can do
that via a lookup on a different table from the one holding the
main data. We are currently doin
This is a fairly frequently requested and missing feature in Lucene/Solr...
Lucene actually "knows" this information while it's scoring each
document; it's just that it in no way tries to record that.
If you will only do this on a few documents (eg the one page of
results) then piggybacking on th
Hi Gora,
your suggestion is good.
Two thoughts:
1. if both of the tables you are joining are in the same database under
the same user you might want to check why the join is so slow. Maybe you
just need to add an index on a column that is used in your WHERE
clauses. Joins should not be slow.
2.
Well I do have disk limitations too, and thats why I think slave nodes died,
when replicating data from master node. (as it was just adding on top of
existing index files).
What do you mean here? Optimizing is too CPU expensive?
What I meant by avoid playing around with slave nodes is that doing
Where do these lines go in solr config?
5000
1
Thanks,
-Mueeb
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/slave-index-is-bigger-than-master-index-tp996329p1003903.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Can you run CheckIndex on the index and post the output?
Mike
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Manepalli, Kalyan
wrote:
> Yonik,
> One more update on this. I used the filter query that was throwing
> error and used it to delete a subset of results.
> After that the queries started workin
Hi Mat,
sounds very interesting, because it seems to be so easy.
You say, that this could comply with Solr's JSON-format.
What are your experiences regarding the differences? I mean, JSON is a
standard,
so what can be different?
Thank you!
- Mitch
Am 29.07.2010 09:42, schrieb Mats Bolstad:
I
Hi Solr world,
I have a city field with german city names like:
Mölln
München
Roßdorf
and I want to do filters like:
fq=city:München
or
fq=city:munchen
I use this type definition:
But faceting then looks like:
molln
munchen
rossdorf
How can
Hi,
I am indexing a solr 1.4.0 core and commiting gets slower and slower.
Starting from 3-5 seconds for ~200 documents and ending with over 60
seconds after 800 commits. Then, if I reloaded the index, it is as fast
as before! And today I have read a similar thread [1] and indeed: if I
set autowarm
On Thursday 29 of July 2010 14:00:21 Eric Grobler wrote:
> But faceting then looks like:
> molln
> munchen
> rossdorf
>
> How can I enable case-insensitive and german agnostic character filters and
> output proper formatted names in the facet result?
Just create another field without any filte
Hi Muneeb,
I fear you'll have no chance: replicating an index will use more disc
space on the slave nodes.
Of course, you could minimize disc usage AFTER the replication via the
'optimize-hack'.
But are you sure the reason for the slave-node die, is due to disc
limitations?
Try to observe the sla
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:49:18 +0100
Mark Allan wrote:
[...]
> Is there a way to reference each core/shard by name rather than
> explicitly stating the host, port and path in the URL? For
> example, I'd like to swap:
> http://localhost:8983/solr/core0/select/?
> q=foo<..snip..>&shards=loca
good questions!
is there any help/
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/hi-all-the-ranging-searchproblem-tp1003643p1003973.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 29 Jul 2010, at 12:27 pm, Gora Mohanty wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:49:18 +0100
Mark Allan wrote:
[...]
Is there a way to reference each core/shard by name rather than
explicitly stating the host, port and path in the URL? For
example, I'd like to swap:
http://localhost:8983/solr
What I meant is that GSON do not wrap the response as follows:
{
"responseHeader":{
"status":0,
"QTime":x},
"response":{"numFound":x,"start":0,"docs":[
{
/* docs */
}]
},
"facet_counts":{
"facet_queries":{},
"facet_fields":{},
"facet_dates":{}}}
If you car
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Michael McCandless
wrote:
> Can you run CheckIndex on the index and post the output?
One of these days we need to get around to adding support for this in
Solr's admin interface.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-566
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Yup, dc3.title worked like a charm. I'm also sorting by that field as
well. Thanks
Vincent Vu Nguyen
Division of Science Quality and Translation
Office of the Associate Director for Science
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
404-498-6154
Century Bldg 2400
Atlanta, GA 30329
-O
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:30:50 +0200
Chantal Ackermann wrote:
> Hi Gora,
>
> your suggestion is good.
>
> Two thoughts:
> 1. if both of the tables you are joining are in the same database
> under the same user you might want to check why the join is so
> slow. Maybe you just need to add an index
I use patch -p0, not -p1. But otherwise that looks the same as what I
do.
Can you try again with -p0 and see if it's still an issue? (or have
you gotten past this and I've just not caught up with mails yet?)
Erik
On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:26 AM, Eric Grobler wrote:
Hi Erik,
I mus
Is there a filter available that will remove large tokens from the
token stream? Ideally something configurable to a character limit? I
have a noisy data set that has some large tokens (in this case more
than 50 characters) that I'd like to just strip. They're unlikely to
ever match a user query an
Hi Christian,
Thank you - sounds good - I will try that.
regards
Ericz
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Christian Vogler <
christian.vog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 29 of July 2010 14:00:21 Eric Grobler wrote:
> > But faceting then looks like:
> > molln
> > munchen
> > rossdorf
> >
>
hi,
what is the best way to deal with searches with special chars like §
(paragraph), € (euro), @ (at in emails), % and so forth.
i think that the WordDelimiterFilters is working on such chars (on index-time
and on query-time).
the greatest problem i see is, that there can be an optional space
Yea, I've had mild success with the highlighting approach with lucene, but
wasn't sure if there was another method available from solr.
Thanks Mike.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> This is a fairly frequently requested and missing feature
Hi,
Am using Solr facets for my data and have a field which has multiple values
in its field am using ";" to delimit those values. So after doing a solr
search it returns me a facet array but that contains ";" in the facet value.
I want facet to return each as separate values.
For eg. am using th
just define the keyword field as multivalued and add the keywords separatly,
not as single-valued-string.
cheers.
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Shishir Jain [mailto:shishir.j...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. Juli 2010 17:10
An: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Betreff: Facets on mul
Hi Erik,
Thanks, -p1 vs -p0 must then be the issue.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> I use patch -p0, not -p1. But otherwise that looks the same as what I do.
>
> Can you try again with -p0 and see if it's still an issue? (or have you
> gotten past this and I've just not
This is probably what you want?
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.LengthFilterFactory
On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 15:44 +0200, Paul Dlug wrote:
> Is there a filter available that will remove large tokens from the
> token stream? Ideally something configurable to a chara
I'm developing a new schema that includes something similar. The DIH
database select statement uses a left join to gather a set of values for
each main record into a new field, separated by semicolons. I put the
result into a fieldType with the following analyzer chain, which breaks
it up in
yes.. The above solution would help ..:)
you can specify like
http://localhost:8090/solr/select?indent=on&start=0&rows=10&q=landmark:landmark4&fl=landmark,user_id
this will give u for each results set only landmark field and userId
And in solr console ,The Full Interface option, There you can try
Hi,
What approach shoud I use to perform wildcard and proximity searches?
Like: "solr mail*"~10
For getting docs where solr is within 10 words of "mailing" for
instance?
Thanks,
Frederico
Hi!
I am trying to get spatial filtering to work, but have some trouble
while trying to understand what the status is.
The version of solr I'm using is a nightly build of 21-Jun-2010.
I have this field definition in my schema:
And I also have the type "location":
When I query my docs,
Hi!
I am trying to get spatial filtering to work, but have some trouble
while trying to understand what the status is.
The version of solr I'm using is a nightly build of 21-Jun-2010.
I have this field definition in my schema:
And I also have the type "location":
When I query my docs,
Any ideas? I've got 5000 documents with an average size of 850k each, and it
sometimes takes 2 minutes for a query to come back when highlighting is turned
on! Help!
-Pete
On Jul 21, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Peter Spam wrote:
> From the mailing list archive, Koji wrote:
>
>> 1. Provide another fi
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:39:57 +0530
Shishir Jain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am using Solr facets for my data and have a field which has
> multiple values in its field am using ";" to delimit those
> values. So after doing a solr search it returns me a facet array
> but that contains ";" in the facet value.
Using the tomcat-users.xml and web.xml changes at the link below, I was
able to setup a default ubuntu server tomcat/solr install to require a
simple login to access solr (the admin console, updates, etc).
http://blog.comtaste.com/2009/02/securing_your_solr_server_on_t.html
What I want to do is r
:
...
: Whether to use this idea or Bastian's depends on how the original data source
: is organized.
it also depends on what you want to get *out* if this is a stored field
... using an analyzer like this will deal with letting you facet on the
individual terms, but the stored vaue re
: I read somewhere that Solr 1.4.1 has field collapse support by default
: (without patching it) but I haven't been able to confirm it. Is this
: true?
No.
If field collapsing (or any feature) was included in an official release,
it would be listed in the CHANGES.txt for that release.
-Hoss
: Actually I am getting result. But I am getting all column of the rows. I
: want to remove unnecessary column.
: In case of q=piza hut.. then I want to get only piza
: hut.
you should denormalize your data more -- if each "id" has more then one
landmark assocaited with it, but for any given sea
Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for, not sure how I missed it.
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Chantal Ackermann
wrote:
> This is probably what you want?
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/solr/AnalyzersTokenizersTokenFilters#solr.LengthFilterFactory
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 15:44 +0200,
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> : Say someone enters the query string 3-diphenylpropanoic
> :
> : The query parser I'm using transforms this into a phrase query and the
> : indexed form is missed because based the positions of the terms '3'
> : and 'diphenylpropanoic'
Are you storing the entire log file text in SOLR? That's almost 3gb of
text that you are storing in the SOLR. Try to
1) Is this first time performance or on repaat queries with the same fields?
2) Optimze the index and test performance again
3) index without storing the text and see what the perfor
On 7/29/2010 12:18 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
it also depends on what you want to get *out* if this is a stored field
... using an analyzer like this will deal with letting you facet on the
individual terms, but the stored vaue returned with each document will
still be a single semi-colon sepera
: My initial approach was to grab the values (which are in another table) with a
: DIH subentity and store them in a multivalued field, but that reduced index
: speed to a crawl. That's because instead of one query for the entire import,
: it was making an individual subquery for every document r
: > typically for fields where you are using WDF with the "concat" options
: > you would usually use a bit of slop on the generated phrase queries to
: > allow for the loosenes of the position information.
:
: Ahh, ok I see dismax supports this with the ps= parameter. Thanks,
for dismax, the par
Hello,
My name is Khai. I am new to Solr, and I am having a strange issue. I use
the admin interface and search for "Khai" and it work fine. However if I
type
membername:Khai
it does not work.
Please provide me with hints on what the issue may be.
Thank you,
Khai
: 1. There are user records of type A, B, C etc. (userId field in index is
: common to all records)
: 2. A user can have any number of A, B, C etc (e.g. think of A being a
: language then user can know many languages like french, english, german etc)
: 3. Records are currently stored as a document
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Chris Hostetter
wrote:
>
> for dismax, the param you probably want to focus on is "qs" which is the
> slop associated with phrase queries which are generated by the main query
> from the "qf" query fields ... "ps" is the slop associated with the single
> score boos
On 7/29/2010 1:13 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
: My initial approach was to grab the values (which are in another table) with a
: DIH subentity and store them in a multivalued field, but that reduced index
: speed to a crawl. That's because instead of one query for the entire import,
: it was mak
: I tried to do that with a custom query handler and a custom response
: writer and i'm able to write in the response msg of solr but only in the
: response node of the xml msg an not in the results node.
i would strongly advise against tyring to modify the block in
any way -- that will only ca
I understand (and its straightforward) when you want to create a index for
something simple like Products.
But how do you go about creating a Solr index when you have data coming from
10-15 database tables, and the tables have unrelated data?
The issue is then you would have many 'columns' in you
Is membername an indexed field in the schema, and was it populated
with something that would match "Khai"?
If so, what is the fieldType in the schema for the membername field?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Khai Doan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My name is Khai.
Hi Yonik,
Here is the field definition in schema.xml:
and it is populated with "Khai Bright T"
I am using solr 1.4.1
Khai
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Yonik Seeley
wrote:
> Is membername an indexed field in the schema, and was it populated
> with something that would match "Khai"?
> If
I can interprete your question in 2 different ways:
1. Do you want to index several heterogenous documents all coming from
different tables? So documents of type "tableA" are created and indexed
alongside documents of type "tableB", "tableC", etc.
2. Do you want to combine unrelated data from 15 ta
Type string is not tokenized, meaning that it would match only the
exact phrase "Khai Bright T". Use text (or another) type that
tokenizes (on whitespace in this case) instead.
Mats Bolstad
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Khai Doan wrote:
> Hi Yonik,
>
> Here is the field definition in schema
The Nabble.com page for Solr - User seems to be broken. I haven't seen an
update on it since early this morning. However I'm still getting email
notifications so people are seeing and responding to posts. I'm just
curious, are you just using email and responding to
solr-u...@lucene.apache.org? Or
What are the differences between "string" and "text"?
What other types (that are available by default) can I use?
Thanks,
Khai
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Mats Bolstad wrote:
> Type string is not tokenized, meaning that it would match only the
> exact phrase "Khai Bright T". Use text (or
I got some problems with Nabble, too.
Nabble sends some warnings that my posts are still pending to the
mailing-list, while people were already answering to my initial questions.
Did you send a message to the nabble-support?
Kind regards,
- Mitch
kenf_nc wrote:
>
> The Nabble.com page for Sol
Put simply, strings do not go through filters, and will need exact
matching. A string field can typically be an ID field.
Texts go through filters so that "bar" could match "Foo Bars", for example.
Types are well documented in the example schema.xml shipped with solr.
You would also find more info
Thank you all.
Khai
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Mats Bolstad wrote:
> Put simply, strings do not go through filters, and will need exact
> matching. A string field can typically be an ID field.
> Texts go through filters so that "bar" could match "Foo Bars", for example.
>
> Types are well
: I want a cache to cache all result of a query(all steps including
: collapse, highlight and facet). I read
: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCaching, but can't find a global
: cache. Maybe I can use external cache to store key-value. Is there any
: one in solr?
One of SOlr's design principles
If I don't do highlighting, it's really fast. Optimize has no effect.
-Peter
On Jul 29, 2010, at 11:54 AM, dc tech wrote:
> Are you storing the entire log file text in SOLR? That's almost 3gb of
> text that you are storing in the SOLR. Try to
> 1) Is this first time performance or on repaat que
68 matches
Mail list logo
