Update JSON format post 3.1?

2012-07-05 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
Is there any official documentation on the JSON format Solr 3.5 expects when adding/updating documents via /update/json? Most of the official documentation is 3.1, and I am of the understanding this changed in v3.2 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-2496). I believe I have the

RE: Update JSON format post 3.1?

2012-07-05 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
Sorry...I found the answer in the comments of the previously mentioned Jira ticket. Apparently the proposed solution differed from the final one (the doc structure key is not needed, apparently). Mike -Original Message- From: Klostermeyer, Michael [mailto:mklosterme

RE: DIH - unable to ADD individual new documents

2012-07-03 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
, Klostermeyer, Michael mklosterme...@riskexchange.com wrote: I should add that I am using the full-import command in all cases, and setting clean=false for the individual adds. What does the data-import page report at the end of the full-import, i.e., how many documents were indexed? Are there any

RE: DIH - unable to ADD individual new documents

2012-07-03 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
isn't your answer. But DIH isn't designed at all to work well with NRT either... James Dyer E-Commerce Systems Ingram Content Group (615) 213-4311 -Original Message- From: Klostermeyer, Michael [mailto:mklosterme...@riskexchange.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 1:55 PM To: solr-user

RE: DIH - unable to ADD individual new documents

2012-07-03 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
pretty easily.. Best Erick On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Klostermeyer, Michael mklosterme...@riskexchange.com wrote: Well that little bit of knowledge changes things for me, doesn't it? I appreciate your response very much. Without knowing that about the DIH, I attempted to have my DIH

DIH - unable to ADD individual new documents

2012-07-02 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
I am not able to ADD individual documents via the DIH, but updating works as expected. The stored procedure that is called within the DIH returns the expected data for the new document, Solr appears to do its thing, but it never makes it to the Solr server, as evidence that subsequent queries

RE: DIH - unable to ADD individual new documents

2012-07-02 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
I should add that I am using the full-import command in all cases, and setting clean=false for the individual adds. Mike -Original Message- From: Klostermeyer, Michael [mailto:mklosterme...@riskexchange.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 5:41 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject

RE: DIH - unable to ADD individual new documents

2012-07-02 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
. Mike -Original Message- From: Klostermeyer, Michael [mailto:mklosterme...@riskexchange.com] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 8:24 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: RE: DIH - unable to ADD individual new documents I should add that I am using the full-import command in all cases

RE: NGram and full word

2012-06-29 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
With the help of this list, I solved a similar issue by altering my query as follows: Before (did not return full word matches): q=searchTerm* After (returned full-word matches and wildcard searches as you would expect): q=searchTerm OR searchTerm* You can also boost the exact match by doing

Wildcard queries on whole words

2012-06-27 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
I am researching an issue w/ wildcard searches on complete words in 3.5. For example, searching for kloster* returns klostermeyer, but klostermeyer* returns nothing. The field being queried has the following analysis chain (standard 'text_general'): fieldType name=text_general

RE: Wildcard queries on whole words

2012-06-27 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
Bitta Appinions, Inc. -- Where Influence Isn't a Game. http://www.appinions.com On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Klostermeyer, Michael mklosterme...@riskexchange.com wrote: I am researching an issue w/ wildcard searches on complete words in 3.5

RE: Many Cores with Solr

2012-05-29 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
IMO it would be a better (from Solr's perspective) to handle the security w/ the application code. Each query could include a ?fq=userID:12345... which would limit results to only what that user is allowed to see. Mike -Original Message- From: Mike Douglass

Populating 'multivalue' fields (m:1 relationships)

2012-05-10 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
I am attempting to index a DB schema that has a many:one relationship. I assume I would index this within Solr as a 'multivalue=true' field, is that correct? I am currently populating the Solr index w/ a stored procedure in which each DB record is flattened into a single document in Solr. I

RE: SOLR Security

2012-05-10 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
Instead of hitting the Solr server directly from the client, I think I would go through your application server, which would have access to all the users data and can forward that to the Solr server, thereby hiding it from the client. Mike -Original Message- From: Anupam Bhattacharya

RE: Auto suggest on indexed file content filtered based on user

2012-04-24 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
I'm new to Solr, but I would think the fq=[username] would work here. http://wiki.apache.org/solr/CommonQueryParameters#fq Mike -Original Message- From: prakash_ajp [mailto:prakash_...@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:07 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Auto

RE: using stored procedures in solr query..

2012-04-03 Thread Klostermeyer, Michael
Yes, I just did this in my DIH with SQL Server 2008 and Solr 3.5; it looked somewhat like the following: entity name=entityName pk=ID...query = exec dbo.sp_GetSolrData @lastIndexTime='${dataimporter.entityName.last_index_time}' Mike Klostermeyer -Original Message- From: vighnesh