Shacky
Quote "A multivalued field is useful when there are more than one value present
for the field. An easy example would be tags, there can be multiple tags that
need to be indexed...". So yes, you are on the right track. Cheers -- Rick
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5800762/what-is-the-u
On 5/26/2017 2:21 PM, Rick Leir wrote:
> (off topic) Strange. Your java has a resident size much lower than its
> virtual size, so I assumed it was mostly in swap. I suppose that the
> virtual size could be mostly lots of readonly or unmodified pages, but
> that seems unlikely. This suggests that y
This could be useful in a space expensive situation, although the reason I
wanted to try it is multiple solr instances in one server reading one index on
the ssd. This use case where on the nfs still leads to a single point of
failure situation on one of the most fragile parts of a server, the d
Just tested: if file metadata (last change time, access permissions ...)
on NFS storage change, then all NFS clients invalidate the memory cache
of the file completely.
So, if your index does not get changed, caching is good on readonly
slaves - the NFS client queries only file metadata sometimes.
(off topic) Strange. Your java has a resident size much lower than its virtual
size, so I assumed it was mostly in swap. I suppose that the virtual size could
be mostly lots of readonly or unmodified pages, but that seems unlikely. This
suggests that you are using some swap for java pages. But I
In my setup once DC1 comes back up make sure you start only two nodes.
Now bring down the original observer and make it observer again.
Bring back the third node
It seems like lot of work compared to Jan's setup but you get 5 voting
members instead of 3 in normal situation.
On May 26, 2017 1
Thanks Rick,
Swap is actually turned off, but reducing the number of Perl processes
is a quick win.
On 26/05/17 17:06, Rick Leir wrote:
Robert,
Cool, perl is taking most of your memory. 12 fcgi processes, at about 8% memory
each. Try changing the web server config so it just forks 2 or 4 o
Thanks everyone. I was indeed changing the type for a couple of fields in my
schema, for reasons I no longer recall; a tutorial said it would resolve some
kind of error, but maybe that's outdated. I can now get the results I wanted
with a pretty simple boost, so I think I'm good for now.
Chip
When the indexing solr instance finishes, it fast-copies the newly built
core to a new directory on the network storage, and then does the
CREATE, SWAP, UNLOAD messages.
Just before starting this message, I needed to update some records and
re-deploy to production, the process took less time the
so are "core" and "corebak" pointing to the same datadir or do you have the
indexing solr instance keep writing to a new directory?
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Robert Haschart wrote:
> The process we use to signal the read-only servers, is to submit a CREATE
> request pointing to the newly
The process we use to signal the read-only servers, is to submit a
CREATE request pointing to the newly created index, with a name like
corebak, then doing a SWAP request between core and corebak, then submit
an UNLOAD request for the corebak which is now pointing at the previous
version.
The
Hi all,
What is the impact of changing "precisionStep" without re-indexing
document preceding the change?
Scenario:
Assume you have index with field:
So `tdate` of precision 6. Now let's assume you were to change `tdate`
to be of precision 8.
According to [1] the change will affect how many
Pretty sure that master/slave was in Solr 1.2. That was very nearly ten years
ago.
wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
> On May 26, 2017, at 9:52 AM, David Hastings
> wrote:
>
> Im curious about this. when you say "and signal the three So
Hi all
What would be an impact of having index with same field of type
TrieDateField stored with precisionStep 6 and 8.
Scenario:
1. Existing index where field `tdate` (TrieDateField) with precisionStep
set to 6.
2. Change in field type with precisionStep 8.
3. Index new content with precisionSte
Robert,
Cool, perl is taking most of your memory. 12 fcgi processes, at about 8% memory
each. Try changing the web server config so it just forks 2 or 4 of them.
And check whether your swap device is working. With a working swap disk, maybe
your system would just slow down instead of crashing. N
Im curious about this. when you say "and signal the three Solr servers
when the updated index is available. " how does it send the signal? IE
what command, just a reload? Also what prevents them from doing a merge on
their own? Thanks
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Robert Haschart
wrote:
Bob:
I'd guess you had to fiddle with lock factories and the like, although
you say that master/slave wasn't even available when you put this
system together so I don't even remember what was available "way back
when" ;).
If it ain't broke, don't fix it applies. That said, if I were redoing
the s
Thanks Shawn,
It's more inquisitiveness now more than anything.
http://web.lavoco.com/top.png
(forgot to mention mariadb on there too :)
On 26/05/17 16:20, Shawn Heisey wrote:
On 5/26/2017 11:01 AM, Robert Brown wrote:
Let's assume I can't get more RAM - why would an index of no more than
On 5/26/2017 11:01 AM, Robert Brown wrote:
> Let's assume I can't get more RAM - why would an index of no more than
> 1MB (on disk) need so much?
>
> (without getting into why I'm using Solr on such a small index in the
> first place :)
>
> My docs consist of 3 text fields for searching, all other
We have run using this exact scenario for several years. We have three
Solr servers sitting behind a load balancer, with all three accessing
the same Solr index stored on read-only network addressable storage. A
fourth machine is used to update the index (typically daily) and signal
the thr
Let's assume I can't get more RAM - why would an index of no more than
1MB (on disk) need so much?
(without getting into why I'm using Solr on such a small index in the
first place :)
My docs consist of 3 text fields for searching, all others are
strings/ints for facets and filtering, about
Or get more physical memory? Solr _likes_ memory, you won't be able to
do much with only 2G physical memory..
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Robert Brown wrote:
> Thanks Rick,
>
> Turns out it was the kernel killing it, dmesg showed:
>
> Out of memory: Kill process 2647 (java) score 118 or
WordDelimiterFilterFactory is probably your issue, but it _should_ be
working in the exact example you gave. Did you by chance
change _anything_ without re-indexing? Susheel's comment about
looking at the analysis page is an excellent one.
Also add &debug=query and insure that you're searching aga
And please _really_ pay attention to Rick's comment about
examining your solrconfig.xml and schema file. I strongly
recommend that you do _not_ just copy them, but take the
base files distributed with 6.5.1 and move any field definitions
and/or changes to them rather than start with your current
co
Isn't the unified html escaper a rather bit extreme in it's escaping?
It makes it hard to deal with for simple post-processing.
The original html escaper seems to do minimial escaping, not every
non-alphabetical character it can find.
Also, is there a way to control how much text is returned
Thanks, Pushkar, Make sense. Trying to understand the difference between
your setup vs Jan's proposed setup.
- Seems like when DC1 goes down, in your setup we have to bounce *one* from
observer to non-observer while in Jan's setup *two* observers to
non-observers. Anything else I am missing
- W
Damn,
Math is hard
DC1 : 3 non observers
DC2 : 2 non observers
3 + 2 = 5 non observers
Observers don't participate in voting = non observers participate in voting
5 non observers = 5 votes
In addition to the 2 non observer, DC2 also has an observer, which as you
pointed out does not participat
On 5/26/2017 2:20 AM, mganeshs wrote:
> I am planning the following for moving my old solr index data created in
> 4.10 to new solr server with 6.5.1. Let me know whether it will work out or
> not.
>
> * Setup Solr and Collections with version 5.5
> * Copy data folder ( in old solr server 4.10 ) to
Hi,
I need to create a new collection on my Solr 6.1.0 cluster where every row
is a "content" and every content can belong to one or many categories,
which are specified in a multivalued field "categories".
In my web app the user can search by categories, and if wanted it can even
group results by
I mean splitOnCaseChange.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Susheel Kumar
wrote:
> Make generateWordParts to 0 and see your self in the Analysis tab the
> results...
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Chien Nguyen
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, everyone!
>> I'm getting trouble with query data from solr. Wh
Make generateWordParts to 0 and see your self in the Analysis tab the
results...
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Chien Nguyen wrote:
> Hi, everyone!
> I'm getting trouble with query data from solr. When i query with key
> "iPhone
> Se" it shows results, key "iPhone se" same, but i query "iphone
>From ZK documentation, observers do not participate in vote, so Pushkar,
when you said 5 nodes participate in voting, what exactly you mean?
-- Observers are non-voting members of an ensemble which only hear the
results of votes, not the agreement protocol that leads up to them.
Per ZK document
Hi, everyone!
I'm getting trouble with query data from solr. When i query with key "iPhone
Se" it shows results, key "iPhone se" same, but i query "iphone se", there
is no result. I used LowerCaseFilterFactory in both index and query analyzer
. What's wrong with my schema? please let me see. Thank
There have been many changes since 4.10. I would suggest that you
re-index or jump through high hoops. First, compare solrconfig.xml with
the new default and have a look at schema.xml.
On 2017-05-26 04:20 AM, mganeshs wrote:
Hi,
I am planning the following for moving my old solr index data
Hi,
I am planning the following for moving my old solr index data created in
4.10 to new solr server with 6.5.1. Let me know whether it will work out or
not.
* Setup Solr and Collections with version 5.5
* Copy data folder ( in old solr server 4.10 ) to the corresponding
collection's data folder
Thanks Rick,
Turns out it was the kernel killing it, dmesg showed:
Out of memory: Kill process 2647 (java) score 118 or sacrifice child
Killed process 2647, UID 1006, (java) total-vm:2857484kB,
anon-rss:227440kB, file-rss:12kB
Now I just need to tell the kernel not to do that.
The other thin
Jan, Shawn, Susheel
First steps first. First, let's do a fault-tolerant cluster, then maybe
a _geographically_ fault-tolerant cluster.
Add another server in either DC1 or DC2, in a separate rack, with
independent power etc. As Shawn says below, install the third ZK there.
You would satisfy m
Robert,
What is at the end of solr.log when it has died?
Is there anything in syslog or messages?
What is the other app?
Run the top command, memory screen, on Ubuntu:
$ top -o RES
I have never used strace(1) on Solr, but that is an option. Run Solr in
strace with the appropriate options to
Can you reproduce this error? What are the steps you take to reproduce
it? ( simple is better).
cheers -- Rick
On 2017-05-25 05:46 PM, Solr User wrote:
This is in regards to changing a field type from string to
text_en_splitting, re-indexing all documents, even optimizing to give the
index a
39 matches
Mail list logo
