Hi Koji
i am using solr 3.5 and i want to highlight the multivalued field, when i
supply single value for the multi field value at that highlighter is working
fine. but when i am indexing multiple values for field and try to highlight
that field at that time i am getting following error with Fast
Hi, Suneel,
There is a configuration in solrconfig.xml that you might need to look at.
Following I set the limit as 2GB.
Best Regards,
Bing
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/How-to-increase-Size-of-Document-in-solr-tp3771813p3771931.html
Sent from t
Hello friends,
I am facing a problem during indexing of solr. Indexing successfully working
when data size 300 mb
but now my data size have increased its around 50 GB when i caching data
its taking 8 hours and after that I found that data have not committed i
have tried 2 time but same issue occ
Hi, all,
I am using
org.apache.solr.update.processor.TikaLanguageIdentifierUpdateProcessorFactory
(since Solr3.5.0) to do language detection, and it's cool.
An issue: if I deploy Solr3.3.0, is it possible to import that factory in
Solr3.5.0 to be used in Solr3.3.0?
Why I stick on Solr3.3.0 is
I think your best bet is to NOT use string, use
something like:
wrote:
> hi all,
>
> I am storing a list of tags in a field using type="string" with multiValued
> setting:
>
> multiValued="true"/>
>
> It works ok, when I query wit
I think your best bet is to parse out the relevant units and index
them independently. But this is probably only a few ints
per record, so it shouldn't be much of a resource hog
Best
Erick
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Kurt Nordstrom wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> We have a situation involving d
It's still worth looking at the GC characteristics, there's a possibility
that the newer build uses memory such that you're tripping over some
threshold, but that's grasping at straws. I'd at least hook up jConsole
for a sanity check...
But if your QTimes are fast, the next thing that comes to min
What does your schema.xml file look like? Is Product_ID defined
as a field?
Best
Erick
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM, pmcgovern wrote:
> I am trying to import a csv file of values via curl (PHP) and am receiving an
> 'undefined field' error, but I am not sure why, as I am defining the field.
>
hi all,
I am storing a list of tags in a field using type="string" with multiValued
setting:
It works ok, when I query with pageKeyword:"The ones". and when I search
for "ones" no record will come up as desired.
However, it appears that the query is case sensitive. so the query
pageKeyword:"T
We are using a VeloDrive (SSD) to store and search our solr index.
The system is running on SLES 11.
Right now we are using ext3 but wondering if anyone has any experience using
XFS/ext3 on SSD or FusionIO for Solr .
Does solr have any preference for the underlined file system ?
Our index will b
Ticket created:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3158
(perhaps it's a lucene problem, not a Solr one -- feel free to move it or
whatever.)
- Naomi
On Feb 23, 2012, at 11:55 AM, Robert Muir [via Lucene] wrote:
> Please make a new one if you dont mind!
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2
Hello all!
We have a situation involving date searching that I could use some
seasoned opinions on. What we have is a collection of records, each
containing a Solr date field by which we want search on.
The catch is that we want to be able to search for items that match a
specific day/month.
Honestly, I'd just map em both the same thing in the index.
sprayer, washer => sprayer
or
sprayer, washer => sprayer_washer
At both index and query time. Now if the source document includes either
'sprayer' or 'washer', it'll get indexed as 'sprayer_washer'. And if
the user enters either 's
We are currently running tests against some of the more recent nightly builds
of Solr 4, but have noticed some significant performance decreases recently.
Some of the reasons we are using Solr 4 is because we needed geofiltering
and highlighting which were not originally available in 3 from my
und
Erick -
Thanks. We've actually worked with Sematext to optimize the GC settings
and saw initial (and continued) performance boosts as a result...
The situation we're seeing now, has both versions of Solr running on the
same box under the same JVM, but we are undeploying an instance at a time
so
Thanks Erik,
The 3.1 changes document the ability to set this and the default being set to
"true"
However apparently the change between 3.4 and 3.5 the default was set to
"false"
Since this will change the behavior of any field where
autoGeneratePhraseQueries is not explicitly set, it could e
On 2/20/2012 6:49 AM, v_shan wrote:
DIH still running out of memory for me, with Full Import on a database of
size 1.5 GB.
Solr version: 3_5_0
Note that I have already added batchSize="-1" but getting same error.
A few questions:
- How much memory have you given to the JVM running this Solr
Please make a new one if you dont mind!
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Naomi Dushay wrote:
> Robert -
>
> Did you mean for me to attach my docs to an existing ticket (which one?) or
> just want to make sure I attach the docs to the new issue?
>
> - Naomi
>
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Rober
there's this (for 3.1, but in the 3.x CHANGES.txt):
* SOLR-2015: Add a boolean attribute autoGeneratePhraseQueries to TextField.
autoGeneratePhraseQueries="true" (the default) causes the query parser to
generate phrase queries if multiple tokens are generated from a single
non-quoted analysi
Seems like a change in default behavior like this should be included in the
changes.txt for Solr 3.5.
Not sure how to do that.
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Naomi Dushay [mailto:ndus...@stanford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 1:57 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: autoG
Robert -
Did you mean for me to attach my docs to an existing ticket (which one?) or
just want to make sure I attach the docs to the new issue?
- Naomi
On Feb 23, 2012, at 11:39 AM, Robert Muir [via Lucene] wrote:
> Please attach your docs if you dont mind.
>
> I worked up tests for this (in
Dear Mr Gupta,
Your understanding about my solution is correct. Now both HBase and Solr
are used in my system. I hope it could work.
Thanks so much for your reply!
Best regards,
Bing
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:30 AM, T Vinod Gupta wrote:
> regarding your question on hbase support for high perfo
Please attach your docs if you dont mind.
I worked up tests for this (in general for ANY phrase query,
increasing the slop should never remove results, only potentially
enlarge them).
It fails already... but its good to also have your test case too...
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Naomi Dusha
regarding your question on hbase support for high performance and
consistency - i would say hbase is highly scalable and performant. how it
does what it does can be understood by reading relevant chapters around
architecture and design in the hbase book.
with regards to ranking, i see your problem
Robert,
I will create a jira issue with the documentation. FYI, I tried ps values of
3, 2, 1 and 0 and none of them worked with dismax; For lucene QueryParser,
only the value of 0 got results.
- Naomi
On Feb 23, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Robert Muir [via Lucene] wrote:
> Is it possible to also p
Is it possible to also provide your document?
If you could attach the document and the analysis config and queries
to a JIRA issue, that would be most ideal.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Naomi Dushay wrote:
> Robert,
>
> You found it! it is the phrase slop. What do I do now? I am using S
Robert,
You found it! it is the phrase slop. What do I do now? I am using Solr
from trunk from December, and all those JIRA tixes are marked fixed …
- Naomi
Solr 1.4:
luceneQueryParser:
URL: q=all_search:"The Beatles as musicians : Revolver through the Anthology"~3
final query: all_sea
*bump*
I'm also curious is something like this is possible. Being able to nest
property substitution variables, especially when using multiple cores, would
be a really slick feature.
Zach Friedland wrote
>
> Has anyone found a way to have multiple properties (override & default)?
> What
> I'd
Another thing I noticed when upgrading from Solr 1.4 to Solr 3.5 had to do with
results when there were hyphenated words: aaa-bbb. Erik Hatcher pointed me
to the autoGeneratePhraseQueries attribute now available on fieldtype
definitions in schema.xml. This is a great feature, and everything
I am trying to import a csv file of values via curl (PHP) and am receiving an
'undefined field' error, but I am not sure why, as I am defining the field.
Can someone lend some insight as to what I am missing / doing wrong? Thank
you in advance.
Sample of CSV File:
---
"Product_ID"
Hi Frederic,
I saw similar issues when sending such a request without proper
URL-encoding. It is important to note that the URL-encoded string
already has to be an UTF-8-string.
What happens if you send that query via Solr's admin-panel?
Have a look at this page for troubleshooting:
http://wiki.a
Hi Per,
> I want an error to occur if a document with the same id already
> exists, when my intent is to INSERT a new document. When my intent is
> to UPDATE a document in solr/lucene I want the old document already
> in solr/lucene deleted and the new version of this document added
> (exactly as
hello,
I'm using Solr 3.5 over Tomcat 6 and I've some problemes with unicode quey.
Here is my text field configuration
When I performe this request : select/?q=hygiene sécurité&debugQuery=true
Here is debug infos :
hygiene sécurité
hygiene sécurité
searchText:hygien (sea
hello,
I'm using Solr 3.5 over Tomcat 6 and I've some problemes with unicode quey.
Here is my text field configuration
When I performe this request : select/?q=hygiene sécurité&debugQuery=true
Here is debug infos :
hygiene sécurité
hygiene sécurité
searchText:hygien (sea
Per:
Yep, you've got it. You could write a custom update handler that queried
(via TermDocs or something) for the ID when your intent was to
INSERT, but it'll have to be custom work. I suppose you could query
with a divide-and-conquer approach, that is query for
id:(1 2 58 90... all your insert ID
Essentially, you're talking about reconstructing the field from the
tokens, and that's pretty difficult in general and lossy. For instance,
if you use stemming and "running" gets stemmed to "run", you
get back just "run" from the index. Is that acceptable?
But otherwise, you've got to go into the
Ah, no, my mistake. The wildcards for the fl list won't matter re:
maxBooleanClauses,
I didn't read carefully enough.
I assume that just returning a field or two doesn't slow down
But one possible culprit, especially since you say this kicks in after
a while, is garbage collection. Here's an
OK, I really don't get this. The quoted bit gives:
+DisjunctionMaxQuery((xid:pass by value^0.3 | id:pass by value^0.3 |
x_name:"pass ? value"^0.3 | text:"pass ? value" | name:"pass ?
value"^2.3))
The bare bit gives:
+((DisjunctionMaxQuery((uxid:pass^0.3 | id:pass^0.3 | x_name:pass^0.3
| text:loan
Hi Darren,
I use Ant 1.7.1. There have been some efforts to make the build work with Ant
1.8.X, but it is not (yet) the required version. So if you're not using Ant
1.7.1, I suggest you try it.
Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: dar...@ontrenet.com [mailto:dar...@ontrenet.com]
> Sent
Em skrev:
Hi Per,
well, Solr has no "Update"-Method like a RDBMS. It is a re-insert of the
whole document. Therefore a document with an existing UniqueKey marks
the old document as deleted and inserts the new one.
Yes I understand. But it is not always what I want to acheive. I want an
error
Hi to everybody,
My name is Thiago and I'm new with Apache Solr and NoSQL databases. At the
moment, I'm working and using Solr for document indexing. My Question is: Is
there any way to retrieve the tokens in place of the original data?
For example:
I have a field using the fieldtype text_general
Erick -
Agreed, it is puzzling.
What I've found is that it doesn't matter if I pass in wildcards for the
field list or not...but that the overall response time from the newer builds
of Solr that we've tested (e.g. 4.0.0.2012.02.16) is slower than the older
(4.0.0.2010.12.10.08.54.56) build.
If
Hi Per,
well, Solr has no "Update"-Method like a RDBMS. It is a re-insert of the
whole document. Therefore a document with an existing UniqueKey marks
the old document as deleted and inserts the new one.
However this is not the whole story, since this "constraint" only works
per index/SolrCore/Sha
Em skrev:
Hi Per,
Solr provides the so called "UniqueKey"-field.
Refer to the Wiki to learn more:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UniqueKey
Belive the uniqueKey does not enforce a "unique key constraint", so that
you are not allowed to create a document with an id's when an document
with the sa
I updated yesterday and did an ant clean, ant test.
I will try a clean pull next.
I'm on linux. Perhaps an ant version issue?
> There was recently some work done to get better about checking
> on licenses, when did you last get trunk? About 9 days ago was
> the last go-round.
>
> And did you do
Hi Chantal,
Yes, I have thought about the docfreq(field_name,'search_text') function,
but somehow I will have dereference the article id's (AID) from the result
of the query to the sort. The below query does not work:
q=AT:metal&sort=docfreq(AREFS,$q.AID)
Is there a mistake in the query that am
There was recently some work done to get better about checking
on licenses, when did you last get trunk? About 9 days ago was
the last go-round.
And did you do an 'ant clean'?
It works on my machine with a fresh pull this morning.
Best
Erick
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Darren Govoni wrote
I really think you'll be in a world of hurt if you have the same
ID on different shards. I just wouldn't go there. The statement
"may be non-deterministic" should be taken to mean that this
is just unsupported.
Why is this the case? What is the use-case for putting the
same ID on different shard?
It's pretty hard to say, even with the data you've provided. But,
try adding &debugQuery=on and look particularly down near the
bottom there'll be a "" section. That
section lists the time taken by all the components of a search,
not just the QTime. Things like highlighting etc. that can
often give
I suspect you'd get better answers on the HBase in terms
of how data is indexed.
I suspect that the answer to which you should use depends
on what kinds of searching you're doing, although this seems
like an apples-and-oranges question, they're intended for
different problems.
Best
Erick
On Wed,
Sorry to have misunderstood.
It seems the new Relevance Functions in Solr 4.0 might help - unless you
need to use an official release.
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#Relevance_Functions
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 13:04 +0100, rks_lucene wrote:
> Dear Chantal,
>
> Thanks for your reply, b
Have you looked at external fields?
http://lucidworks.lucidimagination.com/display/solr/Solr+Field+Types#SolrFieldTypes-WorkingwithExternalFiles
you will need a process to do the counts and note the limitation of
updates only after a commit, but i think it would fit your usecase.
On 23 Febru
> I have an Integer field which carries a value between 0 to
> 18.
>
> Ist there a way to query this field fuzzy? For example
> search for field:5
> and also match documents near it (like documents containing
> field:4 oder
> field:6)?
>
> And if this is possible, is it also possible to boost exa
it loos like it works, with patch, after a couple of hours of testing
under same conditions didn't see it happen (without it, approx. every
15 minutes).
I do not think it will happen again with this patch.
Thanks again and my respect to your debugging capacity, my bug report
was really thin.
On
Hello,
I have an Integer field which carries a value between 0 to 18.
Ist there a way to query this field fuzzy? For example search for field:5
and also match documents near it (like documents containing field:4 oder
field:6)?
And if this is possible, is it also possible to boost exact matches a
Dear Chantal,
Thanks for your reply, but thats not what I was asking.
Let me explain. The size of the list in AREFS would give me how many records
are *referred by* an article and NOT how many records *refer to* an article.
Say if an article id - 51463 has been published in 2002 and refers to 10
HI Erick,
Thanks for the response.
I am currently using solr 1.5 version.
We are getting the following query when we give the search query as "Pass By
Value" without quotes and by using qt=dismax in the request query.
webapp=/solr path=/select/
params={facet=true&f.typeFacet.facet.mincount=1&
Hi Ritesh,
you could add another field that contains the size of the list in the
AREFS field. This way you'd simply sort by that field in descending
order.
Should you update AREFS dynamically, you'd have to update the field with
the size, as well, of course.
Chantal
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 11:27
Hi,
I have a journal article citation schema like this:
{ AT - article_title
AID - article_id (Unique id)
AREFS - article_references_list (List of article id's referred/cited in
this article. Multi-valued)
AA - Article Abstract
---
other_article_stuff
...
}
So for example, in o
Ok i found it.
Its becouse of Hunspell which now is in solr. Somehow when im using it by
myself in 3.4 it is a lot of faster then one from 3.5.
Dont know about differences, but is there any way i use my old Google
Hunspell jar?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com
Thank you for theses informations, I'll keep that in mind.
But i'm sorry, i don't get it about the process to do it ???
Em wrote
>
> Well, you could create a keyword-file out of your database and join it
> with your self-maintained keywordslist.
>
By that you mean :
- 'self-maintained keyw
You totally get it :)
I'v deleted thoses dynamicField (though it was just an exemple), why didn't
i read the comment above the line !
Thanks alot ;)
Best regards,
Xavier.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/location-fieldType-indexation-impossible-tp3766136
Hi Koji,
Thanks for your guidance. i have looked into anlysis page of solr and it's
working fine.but still it's not working fine for few documents.
here is configuration for highlighter i am using,i have specefied this in
solrconfig.xml, please can you tell me what should i change to highlighter
63 matches
Mail list logo
