I would love to see record level (or even field level) restricted access in
Solr / Lucene.
This should be group level, LDAP like or some rule base (which can be dynamic).
If the solution means having a second core, so be it.
The following is the closest I found:
Thanks Walter. This explains a lot.
- MJ
-Original Message-
From: Walter Underwood [mailto:wun...@wunderwood.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 4:41 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cores and and ranking (search quality)
If the documents are distributed randomly across
Thanks Erick for trying to help, I really appreciate it. Unfortunately, I'm
still stuck.
There are times one must know the inner working and behavior of the software to
make design decision and this one is one of them. If I know the inner working
of Solr, I would not be asking. In addition,
Thanks Walter.
The design decision I'm trying to solve is this: using multiple cores, will my
ranking be impacted vs. using single core?
I have records to index and each record can be grouped into object-types, such
as object-A, object-B, object-C, etc. I have a total of 30 (maybe more)
(reposing this to see if anyone can help)
Help me understand this better (regarding ranking).
If I have two docs that are 100% identical with the exception of uid (which is
stored but not indexed). In a single core setup, if I search xyz such that
those 2 docs end up ranking as #1 and #2.
Help me understand this better (regarding ranking).
If I have two docs that are 100% identical with the exception of uid (which is
stored but not indexed). In a single core setup, if I search xyz such that
those 2 docs end up ranking as #1 and #2. When I switch over to two core
setup, doc-A
Hi,
I have data in which I will index and search on. This data is well define such
that I can index into a single core or multiple cores like so: core_1:Jan2015,
core_2:Feb2015, core_3:Mar2015, etc.
My question is this: if I put my data in multiple cores and use distributed
search will the
Hi,
I'm indexing data off a DB. The data is secured with access permission. That
is record-A can be seen by users-x, while record-B can be seen by users-y and
yet record-C can be seen by users x and y. Even more, the group access
permission can change over time.
The question I have is
Thank you all for the reply and shedding more light on this topic.
A follow up question: during optimization, If I run out of disk space, what
happens other than the optimizer failing? Am I now left with even a larger
index than I started with or am I back to the original none optimized index
Hi,
I need to de-fragment my index. My question is, how much free disk space I
need before I can do so? My understanding is, I need 1X free disk space of my
current index un-optimized index size before I can optimize it. Is this true?
That is, let say my index is 20 GB (un-optimized) then
Hi,
Currently, I'm building my search as follows:
q=(search string ...) AND (type:type_a OR type:type_b OR type:type_c OR ...)
Which means anything I search for will be AND'ed to be in either fields that
have type_a, type_b, type_c, etc. (I have defaultOperator set to AND)
Now, I
Answering Jack's question first: the result is different, by few counts, but I
found my problem:I was using the wrong syntax in my code vs. what I posted here:
I was using
q=(search string ...) AND (type:type_a OR type_b OR type_c OR ...)
(see how I left out type: from type_b and
Hi Jack,
I'm going after speed per:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Common+Query+Parameters#CommonQueryParameters-Thefq%28FilterQuery%29Parameter
If using fq ranking will now be different, I need to understand why. Even
more, I'm now wandering, which ranking is correct the
Interesting!! I did not know that using fq means the result will NOT be
scored.
When you say add a boosting query using the bq parameter can you give me an
example? I read on bq but could not figure out how to convert:
q=(searchstring ...) AND (type:type_a OR type:type_b OR type:type_c
Hi,
Given the following Lucene document that I’m adding to my index(and I expect to
have over 10 million of them, each with various sizes from 1 Kbto 50 Kb:
add
doc
fieldname=doc_typePDF/field
fieldname=titleSome name/field
fieldname=summarySome summary/field
Thank you Shawn and Erick for the quick response.
A follow up question.
Basedon
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Common+Query+Parameters#CommonQueryParameters-Thefq%28FilterQuery%29Parameter,I
see the fl (field list) parameter. Does this mean I canbuild my Lucene
search
Hi,
How should I setup Solr so I can search and get hit on special characters such
as: + - || ! ( ) { } [ ] ^ ~ * ? : \
My need is, if a user has text like so:
Doc-#1: (Solr)
Doc-#2: Solr
And they type (solr) I want a hit on (solr) only in document #1, with the
brackets matching. And
I'm not sure what you mean. Based on what you are saying, is there an example
of how I can setup my schema.xml to get the result I need?
Also, the way I execute a search is using
http://localhost:8080/solr/select/?q=search-term Does your solution require
me to change this? If so, in what
Hi,
I'm having this same problem as described here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17708163/absolute-paths-in-solr-xml-configuration-using-tomcat6-on-windows
Any one knows if this is a limitation of Solr or not?
I searched the web, nothing came up.
Thanks!!!
-- MJ
Hi,
In my schema.xml, I have the following settings:
analyzer
tokenizer class=solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory/
filter class=solr.StopFilterFactory ignoreCase=true
words=lang/stopwords_en.txt enablePositionIncrements=true/
filter
-
From: Raymond Wiker [mailto:rwi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 2:01 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Unsubscribing from JIRA
On May 1, 2013,at 19:07 , johnmunir@aol.comwrote:
Are yousaying because I'm subscribed to dev, which I'm, is why I'm getting
JIRA mailstoo
Hi,
Can someone show me how to unsubscribe from JIRA?
Years ago, I subscribed to JIRA and since then I have been receiving emails
from JIRA for all kind of issues: when an issue is created, closed or commented
on. Yes, I looked around and could not figure out how to unsubscribe, but
maybe
Are you saying because I'm subscribed to dev, which I'm, is why I'm getting
JIRA mails too, and the only way I can stop JIRA mails is to unsubscribe from
dev? I don't think so. I'm subscribed to other projects, both dev and user,
and yet I do not receive JIRA mails.
--MJ
-Original
Hi,
Please ignore, I'm testing my email (I have not received any email from Solr
mailing list for over 12 hours now).
-- MJ
Can someone tell me if Solr 3.6.1 supports XML 1.1 or must I stick with XML 1.0?
Thanks!
-MJ
Hi,
Using Solr 1.2.0, the following works (and I get hits searching on Chinese
text):
fieldType name=text class=solr.TextField
analyzer type=index class=org.apache.lucene.analysis.cjk.CJKAnalyzer” /
analyzer type=query class=org.apache.lucene.analysis.cjk.CJKAnalyzer” /
/fieldType
Hi,
I'm migrating from Solr 1.2 to 3.6.1. I used the same analyzer as I was, and
re-indexed my data. I did not add
solr.ReversedWildcardFilterFactory to my index analyzer, but yet leading wild
cards are working!! Does this mean it's turned on by default? If so, how do I
turn it off,
Thanks for the quick response.
So, I do not want to use ReversedWildcardFilterFactory, but leading wildcard is
working and thus is ON by default. How do I disable it to prevent the use of
it and the issues that come with it?
-- MJ
-Original Message-
From: François Schiettecat
te
At one point, in some version of Solr, it was OFF by default, and you had to
enable it via a setting (either in solrconfig.xml or schema.xml, I don't
remember). It looks like this is no longer the case. Even worse, and if this
is true, disabling it no longer seems to be possible to disable
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.
--MJ
-Original Message-
From: Michael Ryan [mailto:mr...@moreover.com]
Sent: Monday,
Thanks Prithu.
But why would I use different settings for the index and query? I would think
that if the setting is not the same for both, then search results for end users
would be confusing, no? To illustrate my point (this maybe drastic) if I don't
solr.LowerCaseFilterFactory in one
HI,
Can someone help me understand the meaning of analyzer type=index and
analyzer type=query in schema.xml, how they are used and what do I get back
when the values are not the same?
For example, given:
fieldType name=text class=solr.TextField positionIncrementGap=100
Thank you everyone for your explanation. So for WordDelimiterFilter, let me
see if I got it right.
Given that out-of-the box setting for catenateWords is 0 for query but is 1
for index, then I don't see how this will give me any hits. That is, if my
document has wi-fi, at index time it
HI,
Can someone help me understand the meaning of analyzer type=index and
analyzer type=query in schema.xml, how they are used and what do I get back
when the values are not the same?
For example, given:
fieldType name=text class=solr.TextField positionIncrementGap=100
I'm using Solr 1.2. If I upgrade to 1.4.1, must I re-index because of
LUCENE-1142? If so, how will this affect me if I don’t re-index (I'm using
EnglishPorterFilterFactory)? What about when I’m using non-English stammers
from Snowball?
Beside the brief note IMPORTANT UPGRADE NOTE about
Hi All,
I don't understand why i'm getting this behavior. I was under the impression
if I search for Apple 2 (with quotes and space before “2”) it will give me
different results vs. if I search for Apple2 (with quotes and no space before
“2”), but I'm not! Why?
Here is my fieldType
Thanks for the quick response.
Which part of my WordDelimiterFilterFactory is changing Apple 2 to Apple2?
How do I fix it? Also, I'm really confused about this. I was under the
impression a phrase search is not impacted by the analyzer, no?
-M
-Original Message-
From: Markus
I'm using Solr 1.2, so I don't have splitOnNumerics. Reading that URL, is my
use of catenateNumbers=1 causing this? Should I set it to 0 vs. 1 as I
have it now?
-M
-Original Message-
From: Markus Jelsma markus.jel...@buyways.nl
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Mon, Aug 2,
I want the following searches to work:
MyField:SDD_Expedition_PCB
This should match the word SDD_Expedition_PCB only, and not matching
individual words such as SDD or Expedition, or PCB.
And the following search:
MyField:SDD_Expedition*
Should match any word starting with
You are correct, the way I'm using tokenization is my issue. It's too late to
re-index now, this is why I'm looking for a search syntax that will to make the
search work.
I have tried various search syntax with no luck. Is there no search syntax to
make this work without re-indexing?!
Hi,
I have an issue and I'm not sure how to address it, so I hope someone can help
me.
I have the following text in one of my fields: ABC_Expedition_ERROR. When I
search on it like: MyField:SDD_Expedition_PCB (without quotes) it will fail
to find me only this word “ABC_Expedition_ERROR”
Hi,
I'm a new Solr user. I figured my way around Solr just fine (I think) ... I can
index and search ets. And so far I have indexed over 300k documents.
What I can't figure out is the following. I'm using:
??? java -Ddata=args -jar post.jar optimize/
to post an optimize command. What
42 matches
Mail list logo
