Re: Mockito issues with private SolrTestCaseJ4.beforeClass

Anyway, this is now SOLR-9081. Best, Georg Georg Sorst schrieb am So., 24. Apr. 2016 um 17:34 Uhr: > Hi list, > > I just ran into some issues with Mockito and SolrTestCaseJ4. It looks like > this: > > * Mockito requires all @BeforeClass methods in the class hierarchy to

Re: relaxed vs. improved validation in solr.TrieDateField

Sorry to hear that Uwe Reh. If this is just in your input/index data, then this could be handled with an URP, maybe evan an existing URP. See ParseDateFieldUpdateProcessorFactory which uses the Joda-time API. I am not sure if that will work, I'm a little doubtful in fact since Solr now uses the

Re: Filtering on nGroups

You may want to check this out: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=62693238 It does aggregations that might work for you. Joel Bernstein http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/ On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Nick Vasilyev wrote: > I guess it

Re: Filtering on nGroups

I guess it would also work if I could facet on the group counts. I just need to know how many groups of different sizes there are. On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Nick Vasilyev wrote: > I am on 6.1 preview, I just need this to gather some one time metrics so >

Re: Re-ranking query: issue with sort criteria and how to disable it

Maybe one ticket would work. Something like: "ReRanker should gracefully handle sorts without score". Then you can describe the two scenarios. It might be that these problems are tackled outside of the ReRankQParserPlugin. Possibly the QueryComponent could add some logic that would tack on the

Re: Filtering on nGroups

I am on 6.1 preview, I just need this to gather some one time metrics so performance isn't an issue. On May 6, 2016 1:13 PM, "Erick Erickson" wrote: What version of Solr? Regardless, if you can pre-process at index time it'll be faster than anything else (probably).

Re: Re-ranking query: issue with sort criteria and how to disable it

Hi Joel, many thanks for the response and sorry for this late reply. About the first question, I can open a JIRA for that. Instead, for disabling the component I think it would be useful to add - an automatic behaviour: if the sort criteria excludes the score the re-ranking could be

Re: Solr 5.4.1 Mergeindexes duplicate rows

Querying on _uniqueKey:9105 returns only one doc from Core1 and 0 from Core2 before the merge -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-5-4-1-Mergeindexes-duplicate-rows-tp4275153p4275174.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Solr 5.4.1 Mergeindexes duplicate rows

Yes, when I query them separately I do not see duplicates. I am using Solr 5.4.1 I created the core and then browsed to http://localhost:8983/solr/admin/cores?action=mergeindexes=Sitecore_SharePoint=sitecore_web_index=SharePoint_All Thanks -- View this message in context:

Re: Filtering on nGroups

What version of Solr? Regardless, if you can pre-process at index time it'll be faster than anything else (probably). pre-processing isn't very dynamic though so there are lots of situations where that's just not viable. Best, Erick On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Nick Vasilyev

Re: Solr 5.4.1 Mergeindexes duplicate rows

My _guess_ is that you somehow hit the merge multiple times and, perhaps, interrupted it thus don't have complete duplicates. If we're all talking about the same thing, what you're seeing doesn't make sense. I'm assuming you're totally sure that a query on _uniqueKey:9105 will return only one

Re: SolrCloud slower than standalone Solr

Without seeing the queries, it's hard to say. There was a faceting issue with some Solr versions that you might be hitting. The first thing I'd try is just straight-up 5.4, non cloud, non-sharede to compare against 4.7 to see whether it's just a difference between 4.7 and 5.4.anything to do with

Re: Passing IDs in query takes more time

Well, you're parsing 80K IDs and forming them into a query. Consider what has to happen. Even in the very best case of the being evaluated first, for every doc that satisfies that clause the inverted index must be examined 80,000 times to see if that doc matches one of the IDs in your huge clause

Re: Filter queries & caching

We have high query load and considering that I think the suggestions made above will help with performance. Thanks Jay On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 5/6/2016 7:19 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > > With three separate > > fq parameters, you'll get three

Re: Solr Suggester no results

First off, kudos for providing the details, that really helps! The root of your problem is that your suggest field has stored="false". DocumentDictionaryFactory reads through all the docs in your corpus, extracts the stored data and puts it in the FST. Since you don't have any stored data your

Re: Solr 5.4.1 Mergeindexes duplicate rows

Thank you for your reply, I did see the website (reason to use the merge indexes). However, individual cores do not have duplicates and the two cores dont have common records. So I am not sure why there are duplicates. One of them is a sitecore core and the other one is a SQL db. They both have

Re: Solr 5.4.1 Mergeindexes duplicate rows

On 5/6/2016 9:47 AM, Kalpana wrote: > I am trying to create a new core by merging two indexes. All of them have > the same schema and data on the cores do not have duplicates. As soon as I > do a merge I see lots of duplicates. I used this for merging : >

Solr 5.4.1 Mergeindexes duplicate rows

Hello I am trying to create a new core by merging two indexes. All of them have the same schema and data on the cores do not have duplicates. As soon as I do a merge I see lots of duplicates. I used this for merging :

Re: Query String Limit

By the way, this is the use-case for the TermsQueryParser rather than a standard clause, see: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Other+Parsers#OtherParsers-TermsQueryParser I _think_ that this doesn't trip the maxBooleanClauses bits... Best, Erick On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 5:01 AM,

Re: the highlight does not work when query without specified field

You need to give more details. How is your highlighter defined? Does it reference the "text" field? And is the "text" field stored (it must be to be highlighted)? Details really matter for these questions. Best, Erick On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:57 AM, 梦在远方 wrote: > hi all, >

Re: query action with wrong result size zero

bq: does this means that different kinds of docs can not be put into the same solr core You can certainly put different kinds of docs in the same core, you just have to search them appropriately, something like q=field1:value OR field2:value Say doc1 had "value" in field1 (but did not have

Re: Oddity with importing documents...

Shawn'e spot on in identifying your problem I think. Actually, I'm not sure what happens if you just replace the Tika jars in Solr. I actually doubt it'd work, but it _might_. Personally I'm not a great fan of using SolrCell in production, you're putting all the work on the Solr sever that's

Re: fq behavior...

>From Yonik's blog: "By default, Solr resolves all of the filters before the main query" By definition, the non-cached fq clause _must_ be executed over the entire data set in order to be cached. Otherwise, how could the next query that uses an identical fq clause make use of the cached value?

Re: Advice to add additional non-related fields to a collection or create a subset of it?

Denormalizing the data is usually the first thing to try. That's certainly the preferred option if it doesn't bloat the index unacceptably. But my real question is what have you done to try to figure out _why_ it's slow? Do you have some loop like for (each found document) extract all the

SolrCloud slower than standalone Solr

Hi everyone,We are trying to migrate from a standalone Solr 4.7.0 with 1 collection(no sharing no replication) and 3GB of heap memory  to aSolrCloud configuration with a 3-Zookeeper ensemble, 2 Solr instances with 1 collection(2 shards per collection and a replication factor of 2).We have the two

Re: Solr 6 / Solrj RuntimeException: First tuple is not a metadata tuple

It appears that the /sql handler is not sending the metadata Tuple. According to the log the parameter includeMetadata=true is being sent. This should trigger the sending of the metadata Tuple. Is it possible that you are using a pre 6.0 release version of Solr from the master branch? The JDBC

Re: Filter queries & caching

On 5/6/2016 7:19 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > With three separate > fq parameters, you'll get three cache entries in filterCache from the > one query. One more tidbit of information related to this: When you have multiple filters and they aren't cached, I am reasonably certain that they run in

Re: fq behavior...

On 5/6/2016 12:07 AM, Bastien Latard - MDPI AG wrote: > Thank you Susmit, so the answer is: > fq queries are by default run before the main query. Queries in fq parameters are normally executed in parallel with the main query, unless they are a postfilter. I am not sure that the standard parser

Re: OOM script executed

On 5/5/2016 11:42 PM, Bastien Latard - MDPI AG wrote: > So if I run the two following requests, it will only store once 7.5Mo, > right? > - select?q=*:*=bPublic:true=10 > - select?q=field:my_search=bPublic:true=10 That is correct. Thanks, Shawn

Re: BigDecimal Solr Field in schema

On 5/5/2016 11:22 PM, Roshan Kamble wrote: > I am using Solr 6.0.0 in cloud mode and have requirement to support all > number in BigDecimal > > Does anyone know which solr field type should be used for BigDecimal? > > I tried using DoubleTrieField but it does not meet the requirement and round >

Re: Oddity with importing documents...

On 5/6/2016 6:38 AM, Betsey Benagh wrote: > Since it appears that using a recent version of Tika with Solr is not really > feasible, I'm trying to run Grobid on my files, and then import the > corresponding XML into Solr. > > I don't see any errors on the post: > > bba0124$ bin/post -c lrdtest

Re: id field always stored?

Solr 6. Thank you that was what I was looking for. On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote: > Solr 6 or Solr 5.5, right? > > docValues now return the values, even if stored=false. That's probably > what you are hitting. Check release notes (under 5.5 I

Re: Re-ranking query: issue with sort criteria and how to disable it

I would consider the NPE when sort by score is not included a bug. There is the work around, that you mentioned, which is to have a compound sort which includes score. The second issue though of disabling the ReRanker when someone doesn't include a sort by score, would be a new feature of the

Re: Filter queries & caching

Thanks Shawn,Erick & Ahmet , this was very helpful. > On May 6, 2016, at 6:19 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > >> On 5/5/2016 2:44 PM, Jay Potharaju wrote: >> Are you suggesting rewriting it like this ? >> fq=filter(fromfield:[* TO NOW/DAY+1DAY]&& tofield:[NOW/DAY-7DAY TO *] ) >>

Re: Filter queries & caching

On 5/5/2016 2:44 PM, Jay Potharaju wrote: > Are you suggesting rewriting it like this ? > fq=filter(fromfield:[* TO NOW/DAY+1DAY]&& tofield:[NOW/DAY-7DAY TO *] ) > fq=filter(type:abc) > > Is this a better use of the cache as supposed to fq=fromfield:[* TO > NOW/DAY+1DAY]&& tofield:[NOW/DAY-7DAY TO

Oddity with importing documents...

Since it appears that using a recent version of Tika with Solr is not really feasible, I'm trying to run Grobid on my files, and then import the corresponding XML into Solr. I don't see any errors on the post: bba0124$ bin/post -c lrdtest ~/software/grobid/out/021002_1.tei.xml

RE: Query String Limit

Hi, This got resolved. Needed to do 2 things 1. maxBooleanClauses needed to be set to large value from 1024 in solrconfig.xml for all cores. 2. In jetty.xml file solr.jetty.request.header.size needed to be set to higher value from 8192 Thanks all for giving pointers to come to a solution.

Re: Can Highlighting and MoreLikeThis works together in same requestHandler?

Does anyone knows if this configuration for the MoreLikeThisHandler will actually work for the highlighting? I tried but it cannot work, although from this conversion in the link below, it says that it can work.

Re: Solr 6 / Solrj RuntimeException: First tuple is not a metadata tuple

I went on digging and debug the code and here is what I got on the point it breaks: so basically the tuple doesnt have anything for "isMetadata" hence getting null on that point... is this a bug or there is missing configs on

Re-ranking query: issue with sort criteria and how to disable it

Hi guys, I have a Solr 4.10.4 instance with a RequestHandler that has a re-ranking query configured like this: dismax ... {!boost b=someFunction() v=$q} {!rerank reRankQuery=$rqq reRankDocs=60 reRankWeight=1.2} score desc

the highlight does not work when query without specified field

hi all, i want query without specified field(like q=java), so i use the 'copyfield' tag to copy my custom field to the 'text' field, this works fine, but issue one problem: the field of returned doc which contain the query keyword does not highlight. I guess this is because keyword was found

RE: Facet ignoring repeated word

Hi Ahmet, Sorry it is Word Cloud https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant=1=2=UTF-8#newwindow=1=word+cloud We have comments from survey. We want to build word cloud using the filed comments e.g For question 1 the comments are Comment 1.Projects, technology, features,

Re: Facet ignoring repeated word

Hi Rajesh, Can you please explain what do you mean by "tag cloud"? How it is related to a query? Please explain your requirements. Ahmet On Friday, May 6, 2016 8:44 AM, "G," wrote: Hi, Can you please help? If there is a solution then It will be easy, else I have to

Re: How to get all the docs whose field contain a specialized string?

Hi, It looks like brand_s is defined as string, which is not tokenized. Please do one of the following to retrieve "brand_s":"ibm hp" a) use a tokenized field type or b) issue a wildcard query of q=ibm* Ahmet On Friday, May 6, 2016 8:35 AM, 梦在远方 wrote: Hi, all I do

Re: Multi-word Synonyms Solr 4.3.1 does not work

Right, this is a known issue. There is currently an active jira that you may like to watch https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5379 And other possible workaround is explained here :

Multi-word Synonyms Solr 4.3.1 does not work

Hi All - Can you please help me out on the multi-word synonyms with Solr 4.3.1. I am using the synonyms as below test1,test2 => movie1 cinema,movie2 cinema,movie3 cinema I am able to success with the above syntax like - if I search for words like test1 or test2 then right hand side

Re: fq behavior...

hello Bastien, In my memory, fq executed after the usual query! -- -- ??: "Bastien Latard - MDPI AG";; : 2016??5??6??(??) 1:54 ??: "solr-user"; : fq behavior... Hi

Re: fq behavior...

Thank you Susmit, so the answer is: fq queries are by default run before the main query. kr, Bast On 06/05/2016 07:57, Susmit Shukla wrote: Please take a look at this blog, specifically "Leapfrog Anyone?" section- http://yonik.com/advanced-filter-caching-in-solr/ Thanks, Susmit On Thu, May