On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.com wrote:
The intent is that optimize is obsolete and should no longer be used
That's incorrect.
People need to understand the cost of optimize, and that it's use is optional.
It's up to the developer to figure out of the
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Sebastián Ramírez
sebastian.rami...@senseta.com wrote:
When I send an update to a non-leader (replica) shard (B), the updated
results are reflected in the leader shard (A) and in the other replica
shard (C), but not in the shard that received the update (B).
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Steven Bower sbo...@alcyon.net wrote:
They are visible to ls...
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Steven Bower sbo...@alcyon.net wrote:
when the TransactionLog objects
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:25 AM, sathish_ix skandhasw...@inautix.co.in wrote:
Hi , i would like to get all documents when searching for a keyword.
http://localhost:8080/solr/select?q=caramrows=_val_:docfreq(SEARCH_TERM,'caram')
Searching for 'caram', there are 200 documents, but iam getting
Hmmm, we keep open a number of tlog files based on the number of
records in each file (so we always have a certain amount of history),
but IIRC, the number of tlog files is also capped. Perhaps there is a
bug when the limit to tlog files is reached (as opposed to the number
of documents in the
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Steven Bower sbo...@alcyon.net wrote:
I'm hunting through the UpdateHandler code to try and find where this
happens now..
UpdateLog.addOldLog()
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Steven Bower sbo...@alcyon.net wrote:
when the TransactionLog objects are dereferenced
their RandomAccessFile object is not closed..
Have the files been deleted (unlinked from the directory), or are they
still visible via ls?
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Steven Bower sbo...@alcyon.net wrote:
This leads me to believe that the
TransactionLog is not properly closing all of it's files before getting rid
of the object...
I tried some ad hoc tests, and I can't reproduce this behavior yet.
There must be some other
group.order is not a valid parameter.
You're probably looking for group.sort
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:30 PM, alexzhang zhangming1...@gmail.com wrote:
I use the Solr 4.0.0 +, when I try to sort the results which within one
group, it does not work?
The wiki I
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Nicholas Ding nicholas...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm using geodist() in a recip boost function. I noticed a performance
impact to the response time. I did a profiling session, the geodist()
calculation took 30% of CPU time.
Are you also using an fq with geofilt to
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, J Mohamed Zahoor zah...@indix.com wrote:
Hi
I am computing lots of stats as part of a query…
looks like the solr caching is not helping here…
Does solr caches stats of a query?
No. Neither facet counts or stats part of a request are cached. The
query cache
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Dmitry Kan solrexp...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any distrib facet gurus on the list? I would be ready to try
sensible ideas, including on the source code level, if someone of you could
give me a hand.
The Lucene/Solr Revolution conference is coming up next
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Marcin Rzewucki mrzewu...@gmail.com wrote:
Recently I noticed a lot of Reordered DBQs detected messages in logs. As
far as I checked in logs it could be related with deleting documents, but
not sure. Do you know what is the reason of those messages ?
For high
Thanks David,
I've confirmed this is still a problem in trunk and opened
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4746
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:16 PM, David Parks davidpark...@yahoo.com wrote:
We just took an installation of 4.1 which was working fine and
Can you tell what operations cause this to happen?
I've added a comment to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4749
where we're looking at some related issues around CoreContainer, but
perhaps it should get it's own issue.
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:57 PM,
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Timothy Potter thelabd...@gmail.com wrote:
There's no problem here, but I'm curious about how batches of updates
are handled on the Solr server side in Solr cloud?
Going over the code for DistributedUpdateProcessor and
SolrCmdDistributor, it appears that the
Can you provide a full stack trace of the exception?
There's a maxClauseCount in solrconfig.xml that you can increase to
work around the issue.
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:31 AM, sawanverma sawan.ve...@glassbeam.com wrote:
Its quite confusing about this error.
I
When using a field name that doen't follow conventions (basically like
Java identifiers), try this:
fl=field(098765-765-788558-7654_userid)
Or enclose it in quotes if it's really a whacky field name:
fl=field(098765-765-788558-7654_userid)
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Roman Chyla roman.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there some profound reason why the defType is not passed onto the filter
query?
defType is a convenience so that the main query parameter q can
directly be the user query (without specifying it's type like
edismax).
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Rogalon nico.beche...@me.com wrote:
Hi,
I am using pretty complex function queries to completely customize (not only
boost) the score of my result documents that are retrieved from an index of
approx 10e7 documents. To get to an acceptable level of performance
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Upayavira u...@odoko.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Upayavira wrote:
I'm sure the best way for me to solve this issue myself is to ask it
publicly, so...
If I have two {!join} queries that select a collection of documents
each, how do I
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:39 AM, dc tech dctech1...@gmail.com wrote:
Yonik,
Many thanks.
The OR is still not working... here is the full URL
1. Honda or Toyota individually work
http://localhost:8983/solr/cars/select?fl=text,scoredefType=edismaxq=suvboost=query($boostq,1)boostq=honda
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:11 AM, dc tech dctech1...@gmail.com wrote:
Yonik:
Pasted the wrong URL as I was trying various things.
I did not work with OR
http://localhost:8983/solr/cars/select?fl=text,scoredefType=edismaxq=suvboost=query($boostq,1)boostq=toyota%20OR%20hondadebug=true
See
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:42 AM, dc tech dctech1...@gmail.com wrote:
See example below
1. Search for SUVs and boost Honda models
q=suvboost=query({! v='honda'},1)
2. Search for SUVs and boost Honda OR toyota model
a) Using OR in the query does NOT work
q=suvboost=query({! v='honda
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Jamie Johnson jej2...@gmail.com wrote:
I had read somewhere that text fields by default were compressed in 4.2.1,
is this the case? If not how do I enable compression of stored text fields?
Compressed stored fields are the default since 4.1
-Yonik
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4625
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Michael Ryan mr...@moreover.com wrote:
I was wondering if anyone is aware of an existing Jira for this bug
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Michael Ryan mr...@moreover.com wrote:
I was wondering if anyone is aware of an existing Jira for this bug...
_query_:\a b\~2
...is parsed as...
PhraseQuery(someField:a b)
...instead of the expected...
PhraseQuery(someField:a b~2)
_query_:\a b\~2
...is
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:36 AM, J Mohamed Zahoor jmo...@gmail.com wrote:
aahha… i used a replication factor of 0.
I thought 0 means no replication of original..
Should that be 1 if i want no replication?
Think of it as the number of copies of a book at a library.
replicationFactor is the
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
arafa...@gmail.com wrote:
Lucene seems to get a new DrillSideways functionality on top of its own
facet implementation.
I would love to have something like that in Solr
Solr has had multi-select faceting for 4 years now.
My understanding
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
2) If you wish to use the /schema REST API for read and write operations,
then schema information will be persisted under the covers in a data store
whose format is an implementation detail just like the index file
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: 2) If you wish to use the /schema REST API for read and write operations,
: then schema information will be persisted under the covers in a data store
: whose format is an implementation detail just like the
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
: I guess my main point is, we shouldn't decide a priori that using the
: API means you can no longer hand edit.
and my point is we should build a feature where solr has the ability to
read/write some piece of
On my particular benchmark rig, each stale check call accounted for an
additional ~10ms.
That's insane!
It's still not even clear to me how the stale check works (reliably).
Couldn't the server still close the connection between the stale check
and the send of data by the client?
-Yonik
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Mickael Magniez
mickaelmagn...@gmail.com wrote:
group.ngroups=true
This is currently very inefficient - if you can live without
retrieving the total number of groups, performance should be much
better.
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. Problem is that the tie breaker is the internal Lucene Doc id. Which
a long time ago was invariant, that is a document indexed later always had
a larger internal doc id. But the various merge policies can
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Marcin Rzewucki mrzewu...@gmail.com wrote:
I meant I get fields from parent core only. Is it possible to get fields
from both cores using join query?
Not yet. Joins are currently only for filtering.
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
You're missing the query to do the join on:
fq={!join from=parent_id to=child_id fromIndex=core2}*:*
We should have a better error message rather than a NPE of course...
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Marcin Rzewucki mrzewu...@gmail.com wrote:
Check below if
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:41 PM, dm_tim dm_...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've been using Solr 4.1.0 for a little while now and I just noticed that
when I index any core I have the write.lock file doesn't go away until I
stop the server where solr is running.
Sounds like it's working as it should. The
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bernd Fehling
bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de wrote:
A question to the experts,
why is the replicated index copied from its temporary location
(index.x)
to the real index directory and NOT moved?
The intent is certainly to move and not copy (provided
One other thing that some auto-warming of the query result cache can
achieve is loading FieldCache entries for sorting / function queries
so real user queries don't experience increased latency. If you
remove all auto-warming of the query result cache, you may want to add
static warming entries
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, davers dboych...@improvementdirect.com wrote:
When I used 4.0 I could use my DIH on any shard and the documents would be
distributed based on the internal hashing algorithm and end up distributed
evenly across my three shards.
I have just upgraded to Solr 4.1
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:59 PM, davers dboych...@improvementdirect.com wrote:
I want to shard on groupid instead of id but it doesn't seem to be working.
That's not yet implemented.
Currently you need to put the group in the ID. From the release notes:
* Simple multi-tenancy through enhanced
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:09 PM, davers dboych...@improvementdirect.com wrote:
I'm not sure I understand. I thought ID had to be unique.
Right - the group becomes part of the ID (the prefix), not the whole ID.
for example
I have the following
[
{ id : 1, groupid : 1 },
{ id : 2, groupid :
Although lucene syntax tends to be quite concise, nice looking, and
easy to build by hand (the web browser is a major debugging tool for
me), some people prefer to use a more structured query language
that's easier to build up programmatically. XML fits the bill, but
people tend to prefer JSON
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Otis Gospodnetic
otis.gospodne...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this is JSON, so right
there it may be better, but for instance I see v here which to a regular
human may not be as nice as value if that is what v stands for.
One goal was to reuse the parsers/parameter
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Craig Ching craigch...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem I have is that JSON is not specified to preserve order of
keys.
JSON is a serialization format, and readers/writers can preserve order
if they wish to.
If you send JSON to solr in a specific order, that order
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Markus Jelsma
markus.jel...@openindex.io wrote:
We need, and i think many SolrCloud users are going to need this as well, to
make replica's don't deviate too much from eachother, because if they do
documents are certainly going to jump positions.
The
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Marcin Rzewucki mrzewu...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, my mistake. I did 2 tests: in the 1st I removed just index directory
and in 2nd test I removed both index and tlog directory. Log lines I've
sent are related to the first case. So Solr could read tlog directory
Hopefully the explanation here will shed some light on this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3912
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Mishkin, Ernest
ernest_mish...@mcgraw-hill.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to reconcile my understanding of how distributed
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 3:40 PM, snake r...@michaels.me.uk wrote:
Ok so is there any other to stop this problem I am having where any site
can break solr by delering their collection?
Seems odd everyone would vote to remove a feature that would make solr more
stable.
I agree.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
arafa...@gmail.com wrote:
Basically, the
recommendation is to avoid CDATA and automatically encode characters such
as yours, as well as less/more and ampersand.
Unfortunately that doesn't even work. Just as a raw control character
like a
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org wrote:
I got the syntax from:
http://lucidworks.lucidimagination.com/display/solr/Function+Queries
Oops, I've alerted our tech writers! It should be fixed now.
exists(field|function) returns true if a value exists for a
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org wrote:
None of the variants worked. I started with that syntax for both exists() and
if(). All gave the same stack trace. --wunder
These boolean functions are new for 4.0, but it looks like you're using 3.3?
-Yonik
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Walter Underwood wun...@wunderwood.org wrote:
Ah, that would be it. Does 4.0 also give a stack trace if you call a function
that doesn't exist?
Stack trace still appears in the logs, but the error message returned seems OK:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Uwe Clement uwe.clem...@exxcellent.de wrote:
What is the best the most performant way to update a large document?
That *is* the best way to update a large document that we currently have.
Although it re-indexes under the covers, it ensures that it's atomic,
and
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:56 PM, jefferyyuan yuanyun...@gmail.com wrote:
Looked at Lucene Javadoc, seems we can run range query, filter, sorting on
IntField.
Also seems IntField is also indexed as trie structure.
Javadoc for IntField:
You're reading the javadoc for *lucene* IntField.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Petersen, Robert rober...@buy.com wrote:
Thanks, debug.explain.structured=true helps a lot! Could you also tell me
what these `#8;#0;#0;#0;#1; strings represent in the debug output?
That's internally how a number is encoded into a string (5 bytes, the
first
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Per Steffensen st...@designware.dk wrote:
Our biggest problem is that we really havent decided once and for all and
made sure to reflect the decision consistently across code and
documentation. As long as we havnt I believe it is still ok to change our
minds.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
arafa...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. Doesn't that make (logical) index=collection? And (physical)
index=core? Which creates duplication of terminology and at the same time
can cause confusion between highest logical and lowest physical level.
maxShardsPerNode = msgStrToInt(message, MAX_SHARDS_PER_NODE, 1);
Remember than replicationFactor decides how many instances of you shard
you will get, so a value of 1 does not provide you any replication.
On 1/3/13 3:46 AM, Yonik Seeley wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM, davers dboych
From http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldCollapsing
Return a single group of documents that also match the given query.
'''
We can find the top documents that also match arbitrary queries with
the group.query command (much like facet.query). For example, we could
use this to find the top 3
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:21 PM, davers dboych...@improvementdirect.com wrote:
So by providing the correct replicationFactor parameter for the number of
servers has fixed my issue.
So can you not provide a higher replicationFactor than you have live_nodes?
What if you want to add more
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with James. Actually lucene tests will fail if a codec violates this.
Actually it goes much deeper than this.
From the lucene apis, when you call IndexReader.document() with your
storedfieldVisitor, it must visit
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:58 AM, roySolr royrutten1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I have a really simple question i think:
What is the order of the fields that are in the SOLR response?
In SOLR 3.1 it was alfabetic but in SOLR 4 it isn't anymore. Is it
configurable?
I want to know this
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Scott Stults
sstu...@opensourceconnections.com wrote:
I'm going to be building a Solr cluster and I want to have a rolling set of
slices so that I can keep a fixed number of days in my collection. If I
send an update to a particular slice leader, will it always
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:04 PM, S L sol.leder...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks everyone for the responses.
I did some more queries and watched disk activity with iostat. Sure enough,
during some of the slow queries the disk was pegged at 100% (or more.)
The requirement for the app I'm building
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:11 PM, S L sol.leder...@gmail.com wrote:
My virtual machine has 6GB of RAM. Tomcat is currently configured to use 4GB
of it. The size of the index is 5.4GB for 3 million records which averages
out to 1.8KB per record. I can look at trimming the data, having fewer
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:43 PM, S L sol.leder...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone have an idea why a query that takes solr just half a second (500
ms) to execute would take 3 seconds to transfer the data?
Normally this is due to slow reading of the stored fields (i.e. slow disk IO).
For
it right.
{collection1: {
config : myconf
router : compositeId,
shards : {
shard1 : {...
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
- mark
On Dec 6, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
See
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:03 PM, sausarkar sausar...@ebay.com wrote:
We still could replicate the issue in 4.1 branch i.e. queries going to one
server (numShards=1) is being distributed among all the servers which is
creating CPU spikes in all the servers in the cloud. Do you think this
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Michael Ryan mr...@moreover.com wrote:
When sorting a TrieLongField, should there be any expected difference in
query speed when sorting ascending vs sorting descending? I'm seeing desc
queries sometimes take 10x longer than asc queries. I can provide more
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:08 PM, sausarkar sausar...@ebay.com wrote:
Ok we think we found out the issue here. When solrcloud is started without
specifying numShards argument solrcloud starts with a single shard but still
thinks that there are multiple shards, so it forwards every single query to
OK, I tried to reproduce it on trunk, and I can't (i.e. everything is
looking fine).
rm -rf example/solr/zoo_data
cp -rp example example2
cp -rp example example3
cd example
java -Dbootstrap_confdir=./solr/collection1/conf
-Dcollection.configName=myconf -DzkRun -DnumShards=1 -jar start.jar
cd
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Erick Erickson erickerick...@gmail.com wrote:
see: http://wiki.apache.org/solr/DistributedSearch
joins aren't supported in distributed search. Any time you have more than
one shard in SolrCloud, you are, by definition, doing distributed search.
It is supported,
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Markus Jelsma
markus.jel...@openindex.io wrote:
The quorum is the minimun, so it depends on how many you have running in the
ensemble. If it's three or four, then two is the quorum
I think that for 4 ZK servers, then 3 would be the quorum?
-Yonik
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
See the custom hashing issue - the UI has to be updated to ignore this.
Unfortunately, it seems that clients have to be hard coded to realize
properties is not a shard unless we add another nested layer.
Yeah, I talked
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.com wrote:
If 1 is the minimum, what is the 3 minimum all about?
The minimum for running an ensemble (a cluster) and having any sort of
fault tolerance?
The zk web page does say Three ZooKeeper servers is the minimum
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.com wrote:
I trust that you have the right answer, Mark, but maybe I'm just struggling
to parse this statement: the remaining two machines do not constitute a
majority.
If you start with 3 zk and lose one, you have an ensemble
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Sandeep Mestry sanmes...@gmail.com wrote:
I followed the advice Michael and the timings reduced to couple of hours now
from 6-8 hours :-)
Just changing from mmap to NIO, eh? What does your system look like?
operating system, JVM, drive, memory, etc?
-Yonik
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Jack Krupansky j...@basetechnology.com wrote:
And this is precisely why the mystery remains - because you're only
describing half the picture! Describe the rest of the picture - including
what exactly those two zks can and can't do, including resolution of ties
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:55 PM, deniz denizdurmu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, as it is clear in the title too, i wanna know for what solr uses this
parameter... i see it on a sharding env on cloud, so i guess it is related
with cloud but still there is no explanation about it in any of wiki
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Shawn Heisey s...@elyograg.org wrote:
but even way back then, rumblings on the mailing list said don't optimize
for performance reasons.
Count me amongst the dissenters. Optimize can make a lot of sense,
and that's why it still exists.
People should be
Sounds like perhaps the SynonymFilter is losing the positionIncrement
of 0 (which make the first two tokens overlap)?
You could perhaps verify with the analysis debugging on the admin page.
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Chris Book chrisb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Martin Koch m...@issuu.com wrote:
around 7M documents in the index; each document has a 45 character ID.
7M documents isn't that large. Is there a reason why you need so many
shards (16 in your case) on a single box?
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Kuai, Ben ben.k...@sensis.com.au wrote:
more information, problem only happends when I have both sort by function
and grouping in query.
I haven't been able to duplicate this with a few ad-hoc queries.
Could you give your complete request (or at least all of
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Aeroox Aeroox aero...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
I have a solr index with up to 50M documents. A document contain 62 fields
(docid, name, location).
The facet count took 1 to 2 minutes with this params :
http://.../select/?q=solr;
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:27 AM, johnmu...@aol.com wrote:
I'm surprised that this has not been logged as adefect. The fact that this
is ON bydefault, means someone can bring down a server; this is bad enough to
categorizethis as a security issue.
It's all relative. There are tons of
.
Ben
From: ysee...@gmail.com [ysee...@gmail.com] on behalf of Yonik Seeley
[yo...@lucidworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:46 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: sort by function error
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Kuai, Ben
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Nick Chase nch...@earthlink.net wrote:
So I'm trying to use ZkCLI without success. I DID start and stop Solr in
non-cloud mode, so everything is extracted and it IS finding zookeeper*.jar.
However, now it's NOT finding SolrJ.
Not sure about your specific
My guess is that this might have to do with the fact that you are on
Windows, and shell escaping is different (i.e. curl isn't getting all
of the parameters and hence isn't sending everything to Solr).
My first recommendation would be to install cygwin to get a UNIX
command line environment like
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Bill Au bill.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I am currently using one master with multiple slaves so I do have high
availability for searching now.
My index does fit on a single machine and a single query does not take too
long to execute. But I do want to take
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Michael Della Bitta
michael.della.bi...@appinions.com wrote:
Has the Solr team considered renaming the optimize function to avoid
leading people down the path of this antipattern?
If it were never the right thing to do, it could simply be removed.
The problem is
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Aaron Daubman daub...@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings,
I'm wondering if somebody would please explain why
SolrIndexSearcher.java enforces mutual exclusion of filter and
filterList
(e.g. see:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Bernd Fehling
bernd.fehl...@uni-bielefeld.de wrote:
Hi list,
while checking the runtime behavior of solr 4.0.0 I recognized that the
handling
of write.lock seams to be different.
With solr 3.6.1 after calling optimize the index is optimzed and write.lock
When I look at the distribution of the Response-time I notice
'SolrDispatchFilter.doFilter()' is taking up 90% of the time.
That's pretty much the top-level entry point to Solr (from the servlet
container), so it's normal.
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:04 AM, lavesh lavesh.ra...@gmail.com wrote:
I know this is possible in Solr which do the grouping irrespective of one
values. i.e below line do the grouping based on column1 considering all
filters except the column column1
facet.field={!ex=column1}column1
now i
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Shawn Heisey s...@elyograg.org wrote:
On 9/26/2012 5:47 AM, Kissue Kissue wrote:
getSolrServer().deleteByQuery(catalogueId + : + Emory Labs) [Notice
that
there are no quotes surrounding the catalogueId value - Emory Labs]
How did you even get this Java
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Chris Hostetter
hossman_luc...@fucit.org wrote:
2) the coordinator node sums up the counts for any constraint returned by
multiple nodes, and then picks the top (facet.limit) constraints based n
the counts it knows about.
It's actually more sophisticated than
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM, dan sutton danbsut...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
This appears to happen in trunk too.
It appears that the add command request parameters get sent to the
nodes. If I comment these out like so for add and commit:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-3883
-Yonik
http://lucidworks.com
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Yonik Seeley yo...@lucidworks.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM, dan sutton danbsut...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
This appears to happen in trunk too.
It appears that the add
501 - 600 of 2724 matches
Mail list logo
