> I'm doing the following query:
> q=text:abc AND type:typeA
> And I ask to return highlighting (query.setHighlight(true);). The search
> term for field "type" (typeA) is also highlighted in the "text" field.
> Anyway to avoid this ?
Use setHighlightRequireFieldMatch(true) on the query object [1]
> I have not worked with SSDs, though I've read all the good information that's
> trickling to us from Denmark. One thing that I've been wondering all along is
> - what about writes? That is, what about writes "wearing out" the SSD? How
> quickly does that happen and when it does happen, what ar
> > As for HDDs, people have noted some nice speedups in Lucene using
> > Solid-state drives, if you can afford them.
>
> I've seen the average response time cut in 5-10 times when switching
> to SSD. 64GB SSD is starting at EUR 200 so that can be a lot cheaper
> to do replace the disk than
I'll shamelessly take this opportunity to plug the long-neglected SOLR-657.
Lars
Some highlighting stuff, most notably maxAnalyzedChars=-1 (SOLR-610) requires
Lucene 2.4 to work correctly.
Lars
> Does anything like this exist, or do I have to write it?
It doesn't come with Solr, but it should be quite easy to implement a proxy e.g.
with Apache httpd mod_rewrite [1].
Lars
[1] http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/rewrite/
> So it appears to be looking for multicore.xml, still. If I put my old
> multicore.xml in the multicore directory, it runs fine. solr.xml is
> ignored. Do I have an odd configuration somewhere that might cause
> this?
Looking at the code in trunk everything appears to be fine. Did you run "ant
Hi all,
I've written a user interface for Solr (Spring web application) which I'd be
willing to donate if people are interested.
You can see a demo here http://larsko.dyndns.org:8080/solr-ui/search.html, SVN
repository is here http://larsko.dyndns.org/svn/solr-ui/. Note in particular
http://lars
>
> -Yonik
>
> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 4:04 AM, Lars Kotthoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dear list,
> >
> > during some performance experiments I have found that queries with ORed
> > search
> > terms are significantly faster than queries wi
Dear list,
during some performance experiments I have found that queries with ORed search
terms are significantly faster than queries with ANDed search terms, everything
else being equal.
Does anybody know whether this is the generally expected behaviour?
Thanks,
Lars
10 matches
Mail list logo
