Maybe ensuring that the full parent path (all parent directories) have
rx permissions?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Charles Moad cm...@imamuseum.org wrote:
I have been trying to get a new solr install setup on Ubuntu 9.10
using tomcat6. I have
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:06 PM, David Smiley @MITRE.org
dsmi...@mitre.org wrote:
It's not clear to me what purpose the query function query solves. I've
read the description:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#query but it doesn't really
explain the point of it. I'm sure it has to
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com wrote:
And, terms whose documents have been deleted are not purged. So, you
can merge all you like and the index will not shrink back completely.
Under what conditions? Certainly not all, since I just tried a simple
test and a
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM, kalidoss
kalidoss.muthuramalin...@sifycorp.com wrote:
In version 1.3 EventDate field type is date, In 1.4 also its date But we are
getting the following error.
Use the schema you had with 1.3 and it should work. The example
schemas are not backward compatible
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Mike mpiluson...@comcast.net wrote:
Sorry for the noise - I think I have just answered my own question. The
order in which docs are indexed determine the result sort order unless
overridden via sort query parameters :)
Correct. The internal lucene document id
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Mike mpiluson...@comcast.net wrote:
Sorry for the noise - I think I have just answered my own question. The
order in which docs are indexed determine the result sort order unless
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Michael solrco...@gmail.com wrote:
So -- I thought I understood you to mean that if I frequently merge,
it's basically the same as an optimize, and cruft will get purged. Am
I misunderstanding you?
That only applies to the segments involved in the merge. The
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Michael solrco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Michael solrco...@gmail.com wrote:
So -- I thought I understood you to mean that if I frequently merge,
it's
Looks like a very old undesirable config issue...
http://search.lucidimagination.com/search/document/c5ae6fa490d0f59a
I'll open a JIRA issue to track this.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Mike mpiluson...@comcast.net wrote:
Stuart Grimshaw wrote:
I
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: I tied to reproduce this in 1.4 using an index/configs created with 1.3,
: but i got a *different* NPE when loading this url...
I should have tried a simpler test ... iget NPE's just trying to execute
a simple
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: I'm seeing this stack trace when I try to view a specific document, e.g.
: /admin/luke?id=1 but luke appears to be working correctly when I just
FWIW: I was able to reproduce this using the example setup (i
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:02 AM, Chantal Ackermann
chantal.ackerm...@btelligent.de wrote:
this works fine for me! However, I'm using Java/SolrJ and I have the freedom
to add any necessary jars to convert the value.
These conversions should normally be done on the Solr server side
(i.e.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Marc Sturlese marc.sturl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey there,
I am thinking to develope facet dates for distributed search but I don't
know exacly where to start. I am familiar with facet dates source code and I
think if I could undesertand how distributed facet
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Marc Sturlese marc.sturl...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey there,
I am thinking to develope facet dates for distributed search but I don't
know exacly where to start. I am familiar
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:07 AM, bharath venkatesh
bharathv6.proj...@gmail.com wrote:
how much ram would be good enough for the Solr JVM to run comfortably.
It really depends on how much stuff is cached, what fields you facet
and sort on, etc.
It can be easier to measure than to try and
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Chantal Ackermann
chantal.ackerm...@btelligent.de wrote:
has anyone some code snippet on how to convert the String representation of
a SortableIntField (or SortableLongField or else) to a java.lang.Integer or
int?
FieldType.indexedToReadable()
-Yonik
Seems fixed.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1543
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar
shalinman...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm able to reproduce this issue consistently using JDK 1.6.0_16
After an optimize is called, only one
Can you open a JIRA issue if you haven't already?
How did you reproduce it (what's the simplest method?)
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar
shalinman...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm able to reproduce this issue consistently using JDK 1.6.0_16
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 8:13 AM, bharath venkatesh
bharathv6.proj...@gmail.com wrote:
We are using solr for many of ur products it is doing quite well
. But since no of hits are becoming high we are experiencing latency
in certain requests ,about 15% of our requests are suffering a latency
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM, bharath venkatesh
bharathv6.proj...@gmail.com wrote:
we observed many times there is huge mismatch between qtime and
time measured at the client for the response
Long times to stream back the result to the client could be due to
- client not reading fast enough
?
The easiest way is to just use something like post.sh *.xml
That's slow performance-wise, but not a big deal of you don't have too
many docs.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Paul
Hmmm... perhaps you're missing the add tag around the doc?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Paul Tomblin ptomb...@xcski.com wrote:
I was looking at the script in example/exampledocs to feed documents
to the server.
Just to see if it was possible, I
$URL
--data-binary @- -H 'Content-type:text/xml; charset=utf-8'
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Is there a way to feed the
actual documents without adding tags that aren't part of the schema to
them?
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Insight 49, LLC insigh...@gmail.com wrote:
Is local file URIs a limitation of solr cell, or just curl;
All of Solr's interfaces are currently based on HTTP and usable over a network.
Curl (like wget) is simply a useful command line tool that can speak
HTTP and
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Paul Tomblin ptomb...@xcski.com wrote:
In an earlier message, Yonik suggested that I use omitNorms=true if
I wanted the length of the document to not be counted in the scoring.
The documentation also mentions that it omits index-time boosting.
What does that
Perhaps something like this that's actually running Solr w/ multi-selecti?
http://search.lucidimagination.com/
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SimpleFacetParameters#Tagging_and_excluding_Filters
You just need a recent version of Solr 1.4
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Oct 29,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Clegg andrew.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
If I give a query that matches a single document, and facet on a particular
field, I get a list of all the terms in that field which appear in that
document.
(I also get some with a count of zero, I don't really
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Jérôme Etévé jerome.et...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really get why these two tokens are subsequently put together
in a phrase query.
That's the way the Lucene query parser has always worked... phrase
queries are made if multiple tokens are produced from one field
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:23 AM, gabriele renzi rff@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Teruhiko Kurosaka k...@basistech.com
wrote:
Are multiple CPUs utilized at indexing time as well, or just
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
I'm pretty sure wildcard queries don't go through analysis, hence they are
probably not stemmed.
Right - same thing would happen w/o the reverse filter.
Also, wildcarding mixes poorly with stemming - trying to analyze
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Bill Au bill.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is my example.
With the current text field, the query term iPhone will not match document
containing the string iphone because iPhone is analyzed into two terms:
i(1) and phone(2).
Right. The limitations are known...
Yes, please show us your solrconfig.xml, and verify that you reindexed
the document after changing maxFieldLength and restarting solr.
I'll also see if I can reproduce a problem with maxFieldLength being ignored.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Andrew
my data and conf directories here:
http://biotext.org.uk/static/solr-issue-example.tar.gz
That should be enough to reproduce it with.
Thanks!
Andrew.
Yonik Seeley-2 wrote:
Yes, please show us your solrconfig.xml, and verify that you reindexed
the document after changing maxFieldLength
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Andrew Clegg andrew.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
Yonik Seeley-2 wrote:
Sorry Andrew, this is something that's bitten people before.
search for maxFieldLength and you will see *2* of them in your config
- one for indexDefaults and one for mainIndex.
The one
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Andrew Clegg andrew.cl...@gmail.com wrote:
Yonik Seeley-2 wrote:
If you could, it would be great if you could test commenting out the
one in mainIndex and see if it inherits correctly from
indexDefaults... if so, I can comment it out in the example and remove
2009/10/26 Teruhiko Kurosaka k...@basistech.com:
Is Solr 1.4 (Release Candidate) suppose to take advantage
of muti-CPU (core) system? I.e. if more than one update or
search requests come in about the same time, they can be
automatically assigned to differnt CPUs if available
(and the OS does
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Teruhiko Kurosaka k...@basistech.com wrote:
Are multiple CPUs utilized at indexing time as well, or just by searcher?
Yes, multiple CPUs are utilized for indexing.
If you're using SolrJ, and easy way to exploit this parallelism is to use
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Paul Rosen p...@performantsoftware.com wrote:
Is there any difference to the relevancy score for a document that has been
added directly to an index vs. the same document that got into the index
because of a merge?
Nope. Anything else would be a bug.
There are
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Fuad Efendi f...@efendi.ca wrote:
Mark, I don't understand this; of course it is use case specific, I haven't
seen any terrible behaviour with 8Gb
If you had gone over 2GB of actual buffer *usage*, it would have
broke... Guaranteed.
We've now added a check in
Try using example/exampledocs/test_utf8.sh to narrow down if the
charset problems you're hitting are due to servlet container
configuration.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
2009/10/24 Glock, Thomas thomas.gl...@pfizer.com:
Thanks but not working...
I did have the URIEncoding in place
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Joe Calderon calderon@gmail.com wrote:
hello *, i was just reading over the wiki function query page and
found this little gem for boosting recent docs thats much better than
what i was doing before
recip(ms(NOW,mydatefield),3.16e-11,1,1)
Thanks, it's
I just tried with Solr 1.4 trunk and it seems to work fine.
a is a stopword... but I'm not sure how stopwords could be messing you up.
For matching song titles, you may want to use a field type with no
stopwords though (there are a lot of common words in song titles I
think).
If you've changed
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Jacob Elder jel...@locamoda.com wrote:
Our application involves lots of live index updates with mixed priority. A
few updates are very important and need to be in the index promptly, while
we also have a great deal of updates which can be dealt with lazily.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 8:36 PM, entdeveloper
cameron.develo...@gmail.com wrote:
It's my understanding that Solr 1.4, which is to be released any day now,
will be based on version 2.9 of lucene.
Serious bugs were found in Lucene 2.9.0... we are all set to release
when Lucene 2.9.1 is released,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:19 PM, George Aroush geo...@aroush.net wrote:
Depends a lot on the nature of the requests and the size of the index,
but one minute is often doable.
On a large index that facets on many fields per request, one minute is
probably still out of reach.
With no facets,
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Jay Ess li...@netrogenic.com wrote:
The boost (index time) does not work when i am searching for a word with a
wildcard appended to the end.
I stumbled on to this feature and its pretty much a show stopper for me.
I am implementing a live search feature where
Solr just uses a stock lucene phrase query.
What version of Lucene and Solr are you comparing?
Do the queries match the same number of documents?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM, DHast hastings.recurs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I have recently installed
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Joe Calderon calderon@gmail.com wrote:
i have a pretty basic question, is there an existing analyzer that
limits the number of words/tokens indexed from a field? let say i only
wanted to index the top 25 words...
It would be really easy to write one, but no
What version of Solr are you using?
I just tried this with the latest 1.4-dev version, and it works fine.
http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=*:*facet=truefacet.field=catfacet.sort=true
Note that facet.sort=true/false has been deprecated in Solr 1.4
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Bill Au bill.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a question regarding the use of the WordDelimiterFilter in the text
field in the example schema.xml. The parameters are set differently for the
indexing and querying. Namely, catenateWords and catenateNumbers are set
Thanks for the report Aaron, this definitely looks like a Lucene bug,
and I've opened
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1995
Can you follow up there (I asked about your index settings).
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Aaron McKee
, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Jason Rutherglen
jason.rutherg...@gmail.com wrote:
If a filter query matches nothing, then no additional query should be
performed and no results returned? I don't think we have this today
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com wrote:
commit(waitFlush=true, waitSearcher=true) waits for the entire
operation and when it finishes, all 1 million documents should be
searchable.
That waits for the commit to complete, but not any adds that may be
happening in
Although shards should be disjoint, Solr tolerates duplication
(won't return duplicates in the main results list, but doesn't make
any effort to correct facet counts, etc).
Currently, whichever shard responds first wins.
The relevant code is around line 420 in QueryComponent.java:
FYI, the latest nightly includes more lucene bug fixes targeted toward
Lucene 2.9.1
The (current) full list is here:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/lucene/java/branches/lucene_2_9/CHANGES.txt?view=markuppathrev=826563
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Yonik
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: When I was working on it, I was actually going to default to not show
: the size, and make you click a link that added a param to get the sizes
: in the display too. But I foolishly didn't bring it up when Hoss
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Joe Calderon calderon@gmail.com wrote:
hello * , ive read in other threads that lucene 2.9 had a serious bug
in it, hence trunk moved to 2.9.1 dev, im wondering what the bug is as
ive been using the 2.9.0 version for the past weeks with no problems,
is it
I think you may need to tell the replication handler to enable
replication after startup too?
str name=replicateAftercommit/str
str name=replicateAfterstartup/str
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Jérôme Etévé jerome.et...@gmail.com wrote:
I just did some allocation profiling on the stock Solr example... it's
not completely idle when no requests are being made.
There's only one thing allocating memory: org.mortbay.util.Scanner.scanFiles()
That must be Jetty looking to see if any of the files under webapps has changed.
It's really
Hmmm, I just tried the first steps of the Solr Cell tutorial, and it
worked fine for me (well, with the exception that there is no site
directory... I went to docs instead - I'll fix that).
Oh wait - I see your problem:
at gnu.xml.stream.SAXParserFactory.setFeature(libgcj.so.90)
You're path
Folks, we've been in code freeze since Monday and a test release
candidate was created yesterday, however it already had to be updated
last night due to a serious bug found in Lucene.
For now you can use the latest nightly build to get any recent changes
like this:
a little early - nothing
to worry about though.
When we build official releases, we explicitly specify the version
number anyway.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
Folks, we've been in code freeze since Monday
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Joe Calderon calderon@gmail.com wrote:
hello *, sorry if this seems like a dumb question, im still fairly new
to working with lucene/solr internals.
given a Document object, what is the proper way to fetch an integer
value for a field called num_in_stock,
A multiplicative boost may work better than one added in:
http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/search/BoostQParserPlugin.html
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Simon Wistow si...@thegestalt.org wrote:
Our index has some items in it which
Jetty has a maximum request size for HTTP-GET... can you use POST instead?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Elaine Li elaine.bing...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
In my query, i have around 80 boolean clauses. I don't know if it is
because the number of boolean
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Andrzej Bialecki a...@getopt.org wrote:
BTW, standard Collectors collect only results
with positive scores, so if you want to collect results with negative scores
as well then you need to use a custom Collector.
Solr never discarded non-positive hits, and now
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Andrzej Bialecki a...@getopt.org wrote:
Solr never discarded non-positive hits, and now Lucene 2.9 no longer
does either.
Hmm ... The code that I pasted in my previous email uses
Searcher.search(Query, int), which in turn uses search(Query, Filter, int),
and
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Lance Norskog goks...@gmail.com wrote:
And the other important
thing to know about boost values is that the dynamic range is about
6-8 bits
That's an index-time boost - an 8 bit float with 5 bits of mantissa
and 3 bits of exponent.
Query time boosts are normal
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Alex Baranov alex.barano...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
It seems to me that there is no way how I can use dismax handler for
searching in both tokenized and untokenized fields while I'm searching for a
phrase.
Consider the next example. I have two fields in
is done while filling in the FieldCache entry, and deleted
docs are skipped by Lucene TermDocs, so terms from deleted docs won't
be seen/counted.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Yonik Seeley
yo...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
Lucene's test for multi-valued
Hi Paul,
The new faceting method is faster in the general case, but doesn't
work well for faceting full text fields (which tends not to work well
regardless of the method).
You can get the old behavior bt adding either of the parameters
facet.method=enum or f.content.facet.method=enum
We'll add
What is this huge file? Solr XML? CSV?
Anyway, if it's a local file, you can get Solr to directly read/stream
it via stream.file
Examples in http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateCSV
but it should work for any update format, not just CSV.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Oct 8,
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Claudio Martella
claudio.marte...@tis.bz.it wrote:
I'm trying to index documents with latin accents (italian documents). I
extract the text from .doc documents with Tika directly into .xml files.
If i open up the XML document with my Dashcode (i run mac os x) i
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:14 PM, gdeconto
gerald.deco...@topproducer.com wrote:
I did check the other posts, as well as whatever I could find on the net but
didnt find anything.
Has anyone encountered this type of issue, or is what I am doing (extending
QParserPlugin) that unusual??
I think
I can't get it to work either, so I reopened
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1145
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Giovanni Fernandez-Kincade
gfernandez-kinc...@capitaliq.com wrote:
I had the same problem. I'd be very interested to know how to
OK, move the infoStream part in solrconfig.xml from indexDefaults into
mainIndex and it should work.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Yonik Seeley
yonik.see...@lucidimagination.com wrote:
I can't get it to work either, so I reopened
https
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:58 AM, swapna_here swapna.here...@gmail.com wrote:
i don't understand why my solr index increasing daily
when i am adding and deleting the same number of documents daily
A delete is just a bit flip, and does not reclaim disk space immediately.
Deleted documents are
It's a bit round-about but you might be able to use ExternalFileField
http://lucene.apache.org/solr/api/org/apache/solr/schema/ExternalFileField.html
The fieldType definition would look like
fieldType name=file keyField=id defVal=1 stored=false
indexed=false class=solr.ExternalFileField
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
So, if I'm on Centos 2.6 (64 bit), what connector should I be using? Based
on the comments, I'm not sure the top one is the right thing either, but it
also sounds like it is my only other choice.
Right - the connector
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Phillip Farber pfar...@umich.edu wrote:
In a separate thread, I've detailed how an optimize is taking 2x disk
space. We don't use solr distribution/snapshooter. We are using the default
deletion policy = 1. We can't optimize a 192G index in 400GB of space.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Phillip Farber pfar...@umich.edu wrote:
So this implies that for a normal optimize, in every case, due to the
Searcher holding open the existing segment prior to optimize that we'd
always need 3x even in the normal case.
This seems wrong since it is repeated
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Phillip Farber pfar...@umich.edu wrote:
Wow, this is weird. I commit before I optimize. In fact, I bounce tomcat
before I optimize just in case. It makse sense, as you say, that then the
open reader can only be holding references to segments that wouldn't be
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't tell why calling a commit or restarting is going to help
anything
Depends on what scenarios you consider, and what you are taking 2x of.
1) Open reader on index
2) Open writer and add two documents... the first
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess you can't guarantee 2x though, as if you have queries coming in
that take a while, a commit opening a new Reader will not guarantee the
old Reader is quite ready to go away. Might want to wait a short bit
after
to be clinging. Needs to find some
inner peace.
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Jeff Newburn jnewb...@zappos.com wrote:
Ok we have done some more testing on this issue. When I only have the 1
core the reindex completes fine. However, when I added a second core
Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah - I was wondering about that ... not sure how these guys are
stacking up ...
Yonik Seeley wrote:
TestIndexingPerformance?
What the heck... that's not even multi-threaded!
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Mark
Is it possible to narrow down what fields/field-types are causing the problems?
Or perhaps profile and see what's taking up time compared to the older version?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Nasseam Elkarra nass...@bodukai.com wrote:
Hello Erick,
...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik Seeley
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 12:52 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr Timeouts
This is what one of my SOLR requests look like:
http://titans:8080/solr/update/extract/?literal.versionId=684936literal.filingDate=1997-12-04T00:00
Lucene's test for multi-valued fields is crude... it's essentially if
the number of values (un-inverted term instances) becomes greater than
the number of documents.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:04 PM, wojtekpia wojte...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm running
Might be the new Lucene fieldCache stats stuff that was recently added?
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Joe Calderon calderon@gmail.com wrote:
hello *, ive been noticing that /admin/stats.jsp is really slow in the
recent builds, has anyone else
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Nasseam Elkarra nass...@bodukai.com wrote:
I had a dev build of 1.4 from 5/1/2009 and importing a 20K row took less
than a minute. Updating to the latest as of yesterday, the import is really
slow and I had to cancel it after a half hour. This prevented me from
: 0
cumulative_evictions : 0
--
Jeff Newburn
Software Engineer, Zappos.com
jnewb...@zappos.com - 702-943-7562
From: Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com
Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:04:27 -0400
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solr
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Giovanni Fernandez-Kincade
gfernandez-kinc...@capitaliq.com wrote:
Hi,
I’m attempting to index approximately 6 million HTML/Text files using SOLR
1.4/Tomcat6 on Windows Server 2003 x64. I’m running 64 bit Tomcat and JVM.
I’ve fired up 4-5 different jobs that
scores:
3.7137468 * .375 / .4375 = 3.1832115
If you don't want length normalization for this field, turn it off by
setting omitNorms=true
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Julian Davchev j...@drun.net wrote:
It looks for pari
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Giovanni Fernandez-Kincade
gfernandez-kinc...@capitaliq.com wrote:
I'm not committing at all actually - I'm waiting for all 6 million to be done.
You either have solr auto commit set up, or a client is issuing a commit.
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
This is what one of my SOLR requests look like:
http://titans:8080/solr/update/extract/?literal.versionId=684936literal.filingDate=1997-12-04T00:00:00Zliteral.formTypeId=95literal.companyId=3567904literal.sourceId=0resource.name=684936.txtcommit=false
Have you verified that all of your
\indexer.logtrue/infoStream
I tried relative and absolute paths, but no dice so far.
Any other ideas?
-Gio.
-Original Message-
From: ysee...@gmail.com [mailto:ysee...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Yonik Seeley
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 12:52 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Jeff Newburn jnewb...@zappos.com wrote:
Ok I have eliminated all queries for warming and am still getting the heap
space dump. Any ideas at this point what could be wrong? This seems like a
huge increase in memory to go from indexing without issues to not being
self populate with so many entries (assuming it is the document
cache again).
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
--
Jeff Newburn
Software Engineer, Zappos.com
jnewb...@zappos.com - 702-943-7562
From: Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidimagination.com
Reply-To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date
would cut it to 16.
The fastest would be to index a separate field to indicate presence or
absence of your field.
So instead of
myfield:[* TO *]
use
field_present:myfield
or
-field_absent:myfield
-Yonik
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Regards,
Steve
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Yonik
1301 - 1400 of 2724 matches
Mail list logo
