Instead of dataConfig=data-config.xml, use config=data-config.xml .
From: sami
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2019 3:05 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Index database with SolrJ using xml file directly throws an error
Hi James,
Thanks for your reply. I am not absolotuely sure I understo
The parameter "dataConfig" should hold an actual xml document to override the
data-config.xml file you store in zookeeper (cloud) or the configuration
directory (standalone). Typically you do not use this parameter. Instead,
specify the "config" parameter with the filename (eg. data-config.xml
Neel,
I do not think there is a way to entirely bypass spellchecking if there are
results returned, and I'm not so sure performance would noticeably improve if
it did this. Clients can easily check to see if results were returned and can
ignore the spellcheck response in these cases, if desire
It doesn't appear to me that the collator works with "spellcheck.q". Looking
at the unit test (SpellCheckCollatorTest.java), this is not a use-case that is
being tested. I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-12650 to
track this bug.
As a workaround, you can remove "spellcheck.q"
(moving to solr-user@lucene.apache.org)
Gene,
I can reproduce your problem if I misspell the "spellcheck.dictionary"
parameter in my query. But I see your query has "direct" which matches the
"name" element of one of your spellcheckers. I think the actual problem in
your case might be that y
This sounds a lot like SOLR-4489. However it looks like this was fixed prior
to you version (4.5). So it could be you found another case where this bug
still exists.
The other thing is the default Query Converter cannot handle all cases, and it
could be the query you are sending is beyond its
Jimi,
Generally speaking, spellcheck does not work well against fields with stemming,
or other "heavy" analysis. I would to a field that is tokenized
on whitespace with little else, and use that field for spellcheck.
By default, the spellchecker does not suggest for words in the index. So if
Sowmya,
My memory is that the cache feature does not work with Delta Imports. In fact,
I believe that nearly all DIH features except straight JDBC imports do not work
with Delta Imports. My advice is to not use the Delta Import feature at all as
the same result can (often more-efficiently) be
You need to set the "spellcheck.maxCollationTries" parameter to a value greater
than zero. The higher the value, the more queries it checks for hits, and the
longer it could potentially take.
See
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Spell+Checking#SpellChecking-Thespellcheck.maxCol
Kaveh,
If your query has "mm" set to zero or a low value, then you may want to
override this when the spellchecker checks possible collations. For example:
spellcheck.collateParam.mm=100%
You may also want to consider adding "spellcheck.maxResultsForSuggest" to your
query, so that it will ret
uration of that. It will
help me.. Thanks
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 1:45 AM Dyer, James
wrote:
> But if you really need more than 2 edits, I think IndexBasedSpellChecker
> supports it.
>
> James Dyer
> Ingram Content Group
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erick Ericks
But if you really need more than 2 edits, I think IndexBasedSpellChecker
supports it.
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
-Original Message-
From: Erick Erickson [mailto:erickerick...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 11:29 AM
To: solr-user
Subject: Re: How get around solr's spell
Ryan,
The json response format changed for Solr 5.0. See
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3029 . Is the single-core solr
running a 4.x version with the cloud solr running 5.x ? If they are both on
the same major version, then we have a bug.
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
-O
yer
Ingram Content Group
-Original Message-
From: Todd Long [mailto:lon...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 10:21 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: DIH Caching w/ BerkleyBackedCache
James,
I apologize for the late response.
Dyer, James-2 wrote
> With the DIH
Brian,
Be sure to have...
transformer="RegexTransformer"
...in your tag. It’s the RegexTransformer class that looks for
"splitBy".
See https://wiki.apache.org/solr/DataImportHandler#RegexTransformer for more
information.
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
-Original Message-
From: Br
Matt,
Can you give some information about how your spellcheck field is analyzed and
also if you're using a custom query converter. Also, try and place the bare
terms you want checked in spellcheck.q (ex, if your query is q=+movie +theatre,
then spellcheck.q=movie theatre). Does it work in thi
Todd,
With the DIH request, are you specifying "cacheDeletePriorData=false". Looking
at the BerkleyBackedCache code if this is set to true, it deletes the cache and
assumes the current update is to fully repopulate it. If you want to do an
incremental update to the cache, it needs to be false
The DIH Cache feature does not work with delta import. Actually, much of DIH
does not work with delta import. The workaround you describe is similar to the
approach described here:
https://wiki.apache.org/solr/DataImportHandlerDeltaQueryViaFullImport , which
in my opinion is the best way to i
Nabil,
What we do is have multiple dih request handlers configured in solrconfig.xml.
Then in the sql query we put something like "where mod(id, ${partition})=0".
Then an external script calls a full import on each request handler at the same
time and monitors the response. This isn't the mo
Mark,
The older spellcheck implementations create an n-gram sidecar index, which is
why you're seeing your name split into 2-grams like this. See the IR Book by
Manning et al, section 3.3.4 for more information. Based on the results you're
getting, I think it is loading your file correctly.
Arnon,
Use "spellcheck.collate=true" with "spellcheck.maxCollationTries" set to a
non-zero value. This will give you re-written queries that are guaranteed to
return hits, given the original query and filters. If you are using an "mm"
value other than 100%, you also will want specify
"spellc
This looks similar to SOLR-4489, which is marked fixed for version 4.5. If
you're using an older version, the fix is to upgrade.
Also see SOLR-3608, which is similar but here it seems as if the user's query
is more than spellcheck was designed to handle. This should still be looked at
and p
Max,
If you know the entire list of words you want to spellcheck against, you can
use FileBasedSpellChecker. See
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FileBasedSpellChecker .
If, however, you have a field you want to spellcheck against but also want
additional words added, consider using a copy of the
I took a quick look at FileListEntityProcessor#init, and it looks like it
applies the "excludes" regex to the filename element of the path only, and not
to the directories.
If your filenames do not have a naming convention that would let you use it
this way, you might be able to write a transfo
Talha,
Can you try putting your queried keyword in "spellcheck.q" ?
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
-Original Message-
From: talha [mailto:talh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 10:13 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Solr spell check not showing any suggesti
Talha,
Possibly this english-specific analysis in your "text_suggest" field is
interfering: solr.EnglishPossessiveFilterFactory ?
Another guess is you're receiving more than 5 results and
"maxResultsForSuggest" is set to 5.
But I'm not sure. Maybe someone can help with more information from
Talha,
In your configuration, you have this set:
5
...which means it will consider the query "correctly spelled" and offer no
suggestions if there are 5 or more results. You could omit this parameter and
it will always suggest when possible.
Possibly, a better option would be to add "spellc
Kamal,
Given the constraint that you cannot re-index the data, your best bet might be
to simply filter out the suggestions at the application level, or maybe even
have a proxy do it.
Possibly another option, you might be able to extend DirectSolrSpellchecker and
override #getSuggestions(), cal
Ryan,
If you use index-time synonyms on the spellcheck field, this will give you what
you want.
For instance, if the document has "lawyer" and you index both terms
"lawyer","attorney", then the spellchecker will see that "atorney" is 1 edit
away from an indexed term and will suggest "attorney"
Elisabeth,
Currently ConjunctionSolrSpellChecker only supports adding
WordBreakSolrSpellchecker to IndexBased- FileBased- or DirectSolrSpellChecker.
In the future, it would be great if it could handle other Spell Checker
combinations. For instance, if you had a (e)dismax query that searches
Ashish,
I would not recommend using spellcheck against a phonetic-analyzed field.
Instead, you can use to create a separate field that is lightly
analyzed and use the copy for spelling.
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
-Original Message-
From: Ashish Mukherjee [mailto:ashish.mukher
I think when you set "count"/"alternativeTermCount" to zero, the defaults (10?)
are used instead. Instead of setting these to zero, just use
"spellcheck=false". These 2 parameters control suggestions, not collations.
To turn off collations, set "spellcheck.collate=false". Also, I wouldn't set
ecker
will try to return you up to 10 suggestions for "hope", but only up to 5
suggestions for "life". *
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Dyer, James
wrote:
> Here is an example to illustrate what I mean...
>
> - query q=text:(life AND
> hope)&spellcheck.cou
5 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: spellcheck.count v/s spellcheck.alternativeTermCount
Hi James,
How can you say that "count" doesn't use
index/dictionary then from where suggestions come.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Dyer, James
See http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpellCheckComponent#spellcheck.count and the
following section, for details.
Briefly, "count" is the # of suggestions it will return for terms that are
*not* in your index/dictionary. "alternativeTermCount" are the # of
alternatives you want returned for terms t
Nitin,
Can you post the full spellcheck response when you query:
q=gram_ci:"gone wthh thes wint"&wt=json&indent=true&shards.qt=/spell
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
-Original Message-
From: Nitin Solanki [mailto:nitinml...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 1:05 AM
To: solr-u
I opened LUCENE-6237 for this. I can't promise when I or someone else will
actually complete this, but it wouldn't be very difficult to do either. Seeing
your use-case, I think this would be a nice little improvement.
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
-Original Message-
From: O. Klein
Got it. Took a quick look at the code and I see it uses the maximum frequency
of the terms. And in your case, one of these terms ("holy" and "wood"), occurs
71,000 times. It wouldn't be too difficult to change this to use the average
frequency of the terms or the minimum. But currently the o
I think the problem is when it combines suggestions from DirectSolrSpellChecker
and WorkBreakSolrSpellChecker, it gets two lists of possiblities in edit
distance order. And when it combines these lists, all it does is interleave
the 2 lists: 1 from the first list, then 1 from the 2nd list, then
Okke,
There is no way to have it both correct spelling and whitespace in the same
correction. So unfortunately there is no easy fix for your use-case. The old
shingle method of correcting whitespace might work for this, but it might also
introduce other problems.
I saw your comments on SOLR-
Okke,
My first guess is that the additional results from the word break spellchecker
is causing additional per-term results and the correct answer is not making the
list. So you might need to increase "spellcheck.count" and/or
"spellcheck.alternativeTermCount" .
My second guess is that the co
50
true
spellcheck
*Schema.xml: *
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Dyer, James
wrote:
> Nitin,
>
> My guess here is that your spellcheck field is a field that has stemming.
> This might be why you get a collation t
Nitin,
My guess here is that your spellcheck field is a field that has stemming. This
might be why you get a collation that return "wind" even though the user
queried "wnd" and it does not get any suggestions. Perhaps "wnd" is stemmed
the same as "wind" ? (Spellcheck usually works best if yo
Yes, that is what I mean. In my case, for each "/dataimport" in the "defaults"
section, I also put something like this:
1
...and then reference it in the data-config.xml with
${dataimporter.request.currentPartition} . This way the same data-config.xml
can be used for each handler.
As I said
DIH is single-threaded. There was once a threaded option, but it was buggy and
subsequently was removed.
What I do is partition my data and run multiple dih request handlers at the
same time. It means redundant sections in solrconfig.xml and its not very
elegant but it works.
For instance,
r the iPhone?
I mean suggesting "I phone" for users who searched "iphone". Minbreaklength
of 1 is just too small isn't it?
Il sabato 31 gennaio 2015, Dyer, James-2 [via Lucene] <
ml-node+s472066n4183176...@n3.nabble.com> ha scritto:
> You need to decrease this to at lea
You need to decrease this to at least 2 because the length of "go" is <3.
3
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
-Original Message-
From: fabio.bozzo [mailto:f.bo...@3-w.it]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:55 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: Suggesting broken words with s
Try using something larger than 2 for alternativeTermCount. 5 is probably ok
here. If that doesn't work, then post the exact query you are using and the
full extended spellcheck results.
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
-Original Message-
From: fabio.bozzo [mailto:f.bo...@3-w.it]
Sen
Having worked with the spellchecking code for the last few years, I've often
wondered the same thing, but I never looked seriously into it. I'm sure
there's probably some serious hurdles, hence the Query Converter. The easy
thing to do here is to use "spellcheck.q", and then pass in space-deli
taining "go pro" and 150 documents
containing "gopro".
Suggestions of the "other" term do not come up in any case.
2015-01-27 16:21 GMT+01:00 Dyer, James-2 [via Lucene] <
ml-node+s472066n4182254...@n3.nabble.com>:
> I think the word break spellchecker will
Can you give a little more information as to how you have the spellchecker
configured in solrsonfig.xml? Also, it would help if you showed a query and
the spell check response and then explain what you wanted it to return vs what
it actually returned.
My guess is that the stop words you ment
I think the word break spellchecker will do what you want. But, if I were you,
I'd dial back "maxChanges" to 1 or 2. You don't want it slicing a word into 10
parts or trying to combine 10 adjacent words. You also need the
"minBreakLength" to be no more than 2, if you want it to break "go" (le
Chris,
- DirectSpellChecker has a setting for "minPrefix" which the techproducts
example sets to 1 (also the default). So it will never try to correct the
first character. I think this is both a performance optimization and is based
on the assumption that we rarely misspell the first characte
Matt,
Unfortunately this kind of correction is not supported. The word break spell
checker works independently from the distance-based spellcheckers so it cannot
correct both whitespace problems and other misspellings together.
If you really need this, then you'll need to go with the shingle
Martin,
If you would like to get suggestions even for terms occurring in the index, set
"spellcheck.alternativeTermCount" to a value >0 . You can use the same value
as for "spellcheck.count", or a lower value if you want fewer results than for
terms not in the index.
See
https://cwiki.apache
ook',
'freq'=>6},
{
'word'=>'york',
'freq'=>460},
{
'word'=>'oak',
'freq'=>7},
{
'word'=>
nandto...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:34 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: WordBreakSolrSpellChecker Usage
Is there a suggested value for this. I bumped them up to 20 and still
nothing has seemed to change.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Dyer, James
wrote:
> M
My first guess here, is seeing it works some of the time but not others, is
that these values are too low:
5
5
You know spellcheck.count is too low if the suggestion you want is not in the
"suggestions" part of the response, but increasing it makes it get included.
You know that spellcheck.ma
David,
I do not know of a published algorithm for this. All it does is in the case of
terms with 0 frequency, it checks the document frequency of the various parts
that can be made from the terms by breaking them and/or by combining adjacent
terms. There are tuning parameters available that le
Nabil,
Unfortunately, the out-of-the box functionality for DIH lacks a lot of what the
csv handler has to offer. There is a LineEntityProcessor (see
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DataImportHandler#LineEntityProcessor), but this
will just output each line in a field called "rawLine". It is up to
Try using the cacheKey/cacheLookup parameters instead:
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311
-Original Message-
From: stockii [mailto:stock.jo...@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 9:19 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subjec
Alexander,
You could use a higher value for spellcheck.count, maybe 20 or so, then in your
application pick out the suggestions that make changes on the right side.
Another option is to use DirectSolrSpellChecker (usually a better choice
anyhow) and set the "minPrefix" field. This will require
lower
threshold is better for small indexes" when in fact I need a high value
like 0.99, so every term returns suggestions. (Is it possible to set it
to 100%? Because 1 gets interpreted as an absolute value.)
Nathaniel
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 6:17 , Dyer, James
wrote:
> DirectSpellChe
2014 at 4:38 , Dyer, James
wrote:
> Did you try "spellcheck.alternativeTermCount" with
> DirectSolrSpellChecker? You can set it to whatever low value you
> actually want it to return back to you (perhaps 20 suggestions max?).
>
> James Dyer
> Ingr
Thanks!
Nathaniel
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 4:08 , Dyer, James
wrote:
> Nathaniel,
>
> Can you show us all of the parameters you are sending to the
> spellchecker? When you specify "alternativeTermCount" with
> "spellcheck.q=quidam", what are the terms y
Nathaniel,
Can you show us all of the parameters you are sending to the spellchecker?
When you specify "alternativeTermCount" with "spellcheck.q=quidam", what are
the terms you expect to get back? Also, are you getting any query results
back? If you are using a "q" that returns results, or m
tscheiben"
},
{
"name":
"Sichtscheiben",
"spell": "Sichtscheiben"
}
]
}
}
Multiple records
exist that should match.
The note for alternativeTermCount is
appreciated.
I've tried another term: "Transport". I get suggestion
Thomas,
It looks like you've set things up correctly in that while the user is
searching against a stemmed field ("name"), spellcheck is checking against a
lightly-analyzed copy of it ("spell"). This is the right way to do it as
spellcheck against stemmed forms is usually undesirable.
But as
This is the WordBreakSolrSpellChecker, which is there to correct spelling
errors involving misplaced whitespace (or is it white space ??) To disable it,
remove this or similar line from your requestHandler in solrconfig.xml:
wordbreak
Keep in mind, if you want the best of both worlds, you can
Because "my" is the 7th suggestion down the list, it is going to need more than
30 tries to figure out the one that can give some hits. You can increase
"maxCollationTries" if you're willing to endure the performance penalty of
trying so many replacement queries. This case actually highlights
DirectSolrSpellChecker defaults with a minimum term length of 4. So you'd need
to bring this down with 1.
But you might not like the results from this. See:
http://lucene.apache.org/core/4_6_0/suggest/org/apache/lucene/search/spell/DirectSpellChecker.html#setMinQueryLength%28int%29
James Dy
server is fully started. And when it gets stuck
> sometimes I have to restart the server, sometimes I'm able to edit the
> solrconfig.xml and reload it.
>
> Harun Reşit Zafer
> TÜBİTAK BİLGEM BTE
> Bulut Bilişim ve Büyük Veri Analiz Sistemleri Bölümü
> T +90 262 675 3268
>
Harun,
Just to clarify, is this happening during startup when a warmup query is
running, or is this once the server is fully started? This might be another
instance of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-5386 .
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311
-Original Message-
I've heard of a user adding a separate section to the end of their
data-config.xml with a SqlEntityProcessor and an UPDATE statement. It would
run after your main section. I have not tried it myself, and surely
DIH was not designed to do this, but it might work.
A better solution might be t
Corey,
Looking more carefully at your responses than I did last time I answered this
question, it looks like every correction is 2 edits in this example.
unie > unity (e>t , insert y)
unie > unger (i>g , insert r)
unie > unick (e>c , insert k)
unie > united (delete t , insert d)
unie > unique
Alejandro,
You can use a sub-entity with a cache using DIH. This will solve the
"n+1-select" problem and make it run quickly. Unfortunately, the only built-in
cache implementation is in-memory so it doesn't scale. There is a fast,
disk-backed cache using bdb-je, which I use in production. S
Query results default to score. But spelling suggestions sort by edit
distance, with frequency as a secondary sort.
unie => unger = 2 edits
unie => unick = 2 edits
unie => united = 3 edits
unie => unique = 3 edits
... etc ...
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311
-Original Mess
Original Message-
From: sunshine glass [mailto:sunshineglassof2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:32 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Searching words with spaces for word without spaces in solr
I am not clear with this. This link is related to spell check. Can you
e
In addition to the analyzer configuration you're using, you might want to also
use WordBreakSolrSpellChecker to catch possible matches that can't easily be
solved through analysis. For more information, see the section for it at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Spell+Checking
Jia,
I agree that for the spellcheckers to work, you need instead of .
But the "x-box" => "xbox" example ought to be solved by analyzing using
WordDelimiterFilterFactory and "catenateWords=1" at query-time. Did you
re-index after changing your analysis chain (you need to)? Perhaps you can
We migrated a big application from Endeca (6.0, I think) a several years ago.
We were not using any of the business UI tools, but we found that Solr is a lot
more flexible and performant than Endeca. But with more flexibility comes more
you need to know.
The hardest thing was to migrate the E
I do not believe there is such a setting. Most likely you will need to
increase the value for "maxCollationTries" to get it to discover the "correct"
combination. Just be sure not to set this too high as queries with a lot of
misspelled words (or for something your index simply doesn't have) wi
I believe it will return the terms that are most similar to the queried terms
but have a greater term frequency than the queried terms. It doesn't actually
care what the term frequencies are, only that they are greater than the
frequencies of the terms you queried on.
I do not know your use ca
If "wrangle" is not in your index, and if it is within the max # of edits, then
it should suggest it.
Are you getting anything back from spellcheck at all? What is the exact query
you are using? How is the spellcheck field analyzed? If you're using
stemming, then "wrangle" and "wrangler" mig
omcat instance would not even start, can you let me know why ?
Thanks.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Dyer, James
wrote:
> You can do this if you set it up like in the mail Solr example:
>
>
> wordbreak
> solr.WordBreakSolrSpellChecker
> name
>
You can do this if you set it up like in the mail Solr example:
wordbreak
solr.WordBreakSolrSpellChecker
name
true
true
10
The "combineWords" and "breakWords" flags let you tell it which kind of
workbreak correction you want. "maxChanges"
Its "spellcheck.maxResultsForSuggest".
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpellCheckComponent#spellcheck.maxResultsForSuggest
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311
-Original Message-
From: Jan Verweij - Reeleez [mailto:j...@reeleez.nl]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 2:12 AM
To: solr-user@
Have you looked at "spellcheck.collate", which re-writes the entire query with
one or more corrected words? See
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpellCheckComponent#spellcheck.collate . There are
several options shown at this link that controls how the "collate" feature
works.
James Dyer
Ingram C
To achieve what you want, you need to specify a lightly analyzed field (no
stemming) for spellcheck. For instance, if your "solr.SpellCheckComponent" in
solrconfig.xml is set up with "field" of "title_full", then try using
"title_full_unstemmed". Also, if you are specifying a
"queryAnalyzerFi
spellcheck.q is supposed to take a list of raw query terms, so what you're
trying to do in your example won't work. What you should do instead is
space-delimit the actual query terms that exist in "qq" and (nothing else) use
that for your value of spellcheck.q .
James Dyer
Ingram Content Gro
Alejandro,
Assuming you're using Solr 3.x, under:
...
...you can add:
./spellchecker
...then the spell check index will be created on-disk and not in memory.
But in Solr 4.0, the default spellcheck implementation changed to
org.apache.solr.spelling.DirectSolrSpellChecker, which does n
Peter,
I think you can override org.apache.solr.handler.dataimport.SolrWriter to have
a custom (no-op) rollback method. Your new writer should implement
org.apache.solr.handler.dataimport.DIHWriter. You can specify the "writerImpl"
request parameter to specify the new class.
Unfortunately, i
otto il rinoceronte
2
true
(otto il polpo)
this is the conf:
textSpell
default
spellcheckdef
spellchecker
on
false
true
6
true
.001
If you are using "spellcheck.maxCollateTries" with a value greater than 0 the
*collatation* section of your spellcheck response will give query corrections
that are proven to produce hits. Possibly you were looking at the first
section where it gives individual word suggestions? Or maybe one o
The first thing I would suggest is to try and run it not in debug mode. DIH's
debug mode limits the number of documents it will take in, so that might be all
that is wrong here.
James Dyer
Ingram Content Group
(615) 213-4311
-Original Message-
From: mathias@gmail.com [mailto:mathi
Without more of the stacktrace I don't think you'll get much help. However,
its my experience that exceptions that begin with "Unable to execute query"
mean the db didn't like something about one or both queries. I think it would
have listed in there somewhere the actual query it didn't like,
driver="${dataimporter.request.driver}"
url ="${dataimporter.request.url}" and all where to mention these
my purpose is to config my DB Details(url,uname,password) in properties file
-Original Message-----
From: Dyer, James [mailto:james.d...@ingramcontent.com]
Sent: Wednesda
Jean-Marc,
This might not solve the particular problem you're having, but to get
spellcheck to work properly in a distributed enviornment, be sure to set the
"shards.qt" parameter to the name of your request handler. See
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SpellCheckComponent#Distributed_Search_Suppor
There are 2 parameters you want to consider:
First is "spellcheck.maxResultsForSuggest". Because you have an "OR" query,
you'll get hits if only 1 query term is in the index. This parameter lets you
tune it to make it suggest if the query returns n or fewer hits. My memory
tells me, however,
If you prepend the variable name with "dataimporter.request", you can include
variables like these as request parameters:
/dih?driver=some.driver.class&url=jdbc:url:something
If you want to include these in solrcore.properties, you can additionally add
each property to solrconfig.xml like thi
1 - 100 of 401 matches
Mail list logo
