Exceptions in solr log

2019-12-26 Thread Akreeti Agarwal
Hi All, Please help me with these exceptions and their workarounds: 1. org.apache.solr.common.SolrException: org.apache.solr.search.SyntaxError: Cannot parse 2. o.a.s.h.IndexFetcher No files to download for index generation: 1394327 3. o.a.s.h.a.LukeRequestHandler Error getting file length for [

Re: does copyFields increase indexe size ?

2019-12-26 Thread David Hastings
The field is stored somewhere > On Dec 26, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Nicolas Paris wrote: > > Hi Eric > > Below a part of the managed-schema. There is 1k section* fields. The > second experience, I removed the copyField, droped the collection and > re-indexed the whole. To mesure the index size, I we

Re: does copyFields increase indexe size ?

2019-12-26 Thread Nicolas Paris
Hi Eric Below a part of the managed-schema. There is 1k section* fields. The second experience, I removed the copyField, droped the collection and re-indexed the whole. To mesure the index size, I went to solr-cloud and looked in the cloud part: 40GO per shard. I also look at the folder size. I ma

Re: does copyFields increase indexe size ?

2019-12-26 Thread Erick Erickson
This simply cannot be true unless the destination copyField is indexed=false, docValues=false stored=false. I.e. “some circumstances” means there’s really no use in using the copyField in the first place. I suppose that if you don’t store any term vectors, no position information nothing except,

Re: Clustering always return labels":["Other Topics"]

2019-12-26 Thread Ahmed Adel
Hi - adding carrot.title field should resolve this issue On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 2:22 AM Nehemia Litterat wrote: > Hi, > I am using stand alone solr 8.2 server. > Used this guide to define Clustering > https://carrot2.github.io/solr-integration-strategies/carrot2-3.6.3/index.html > > > (Attached

Re: does copyFields increase indexe size ?

2019-12-26 Thread Nicolas Paris
Anyway, that´s good news copy field does not increase indexe size in some circumstance: - the copied fields and the target field share the same datatype - the target field is not stored this is tested on text fields On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 11:42:23AM +0100, Nicolas Paris wrote: > > On Wed, Dec