Does this seem like it would be a configuration issue, an indexed data
issue, or something else?
Thanks
mrw wrote:
We have two Solr nodes, each with multiple shards. If we query each shard
directly (no shards parameter), we get the expected results:
response
lst name=responseHeader
We have two Solr nodes, each with multiple shards. If we query each shard
directly (no shards parameter), we get the expected results:
response
lst name=responseHeader
int name=status 0
int name=QTime 22
result name=response numFound=100 start=0
doc
No, not setting those options in the query or schema.xml file.
I'll try what you said, however.
Thanks
Chris Hostetter-3 wrote:
: We have a D field (string, indexed, stored, not required) that is
returned
: * when we search with the standard request handler
: * when we search with
We have a D field (string, indexed, stored, not required) that is returned
* when we search with the standard request handler
* when we search with dismax request handler _and the field is specified in
the sort parameter_
but is not returned when using the dismax handler and the field is not
take
queries from the logs, split them around parameters, take the shards out,
put the shards back in, take the OLS labels out, put them back in, etc.
With long, complex queries, it's essential to have a large work space to
play in. :)
Stefan Matheis wrote:
mrw,
you mean a field like here
?
Bob Sandiford | Lead Software Engineer | SirsiDynix
P: 800.288.8020 X6943 | bob.sandif...@sirsidynix.com
www.sirsidynix.com
_
http://www.cosugi.org/
-Original Message-
From: mrw [mailto:mikerobertsw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:28 PM
To: solr-user
architect
Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
On 2. mars 2011, at 23.06, mrw wrote:
We have two banks of Solr nodes with identical schemas. The data I'm
searching for is in both banks.
One has defaultSearchField set to field1, the other has
defaultSearchField
set to field2.
We need
For standard query handler fq-only queries, we used q=*:*. However, with
dismax, that returns 0 results. Are fq-only queries possible with dismax?
Thanks!
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/dismax-query-with-no-empty-q-parameter-tp2619170p2619170.html
query
to multiple fields, so if the user enters led zeppelin merle we need to be
able to do the logical equivalent of
fq=field1:led zeppelin merle OR field2:led zeppelin merle
Any ideas? :)
mrw wrote:
After searching this list, Google, and looking through the Pugh book, I am
a little
Ah...so I need to be doing
q.alt=*:*
fq=:.
Of course, now that you showed me what I look for, I also see the
explanation in the Packt book. Sheesh.
Thanks for the tip!
Chris Hostetter-3 wrote:
: For standard query handler fq-only queries, we used q=*:*. However,
with
: dismax, that
Looks nice.
Might be also worth it to create a page with large query field for pasting
in complete URL-encoded queries that cross cores, etc. I did that at work
(via ASP.net) so we could paste in queries from logs and debug them. We
tend to use that quite a bit.
Cheers
Stefan Matheis
We have two banks of Solr nodes with identical schemas. The data I'm
searching for is in both banks.
One has defaultSearchField set to field1, the other has defaultSearchField
set to field2.
We need to support both user queries and facet queries that have no user
content. For the latter, it
with moving the
labels piece to q and the user query to fq and sticking with the standard
handler.
Thanks!
Otis Gospodnetic-2 wrote:
Hi mrw,
It sounds like you (e)dismax is what you should look into. You didn't
mention
it/them, so I'm assuming you're not aware of them.
See: http://search
Say I have an index with first_name and last_name fields, and also a copy
field for the full name called full_name. Say I add two employees:
Napoleon Bonaparte and Napoleon Dynamite.
If I search for just the first or last name, or both names, with mm=1, I get
the expected results:
and/or the search
term?
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 10:41 AM, mrw mikerobertsw...@gmail.com wrote:
Say I have an index with first_name and last_name fields, and also a copy
field for the full name called full_name. Say I add two employees:
Napoleon Bonaparte and Napoleon Dynamite.
If I search
:
--- On Mon, 2/28/11, mrw mikerobertsw...@gmail.com wrote:
From: mrw mikerobertsw...@gmail.com
Subject: Basic Dismax syntax question
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 7:41 PM
Say I have an index with first_name
and last_name fields, and also a copy
field
Based on what I've read here and what I could find on the web, it seems that
each fq clause essentially gets its own results cache. Is that correct?
We have a corporate policy of passing the user's Oracle OLS labels into the
index in order to be matched against the labels field. I currently
Thanks for the tip. No, I did not know about that. Unfortunately, we use
Oracle OLS which does not appear to be supported.
Jan Høydahl / Cominvent wrote:
Hi,
There are better ways to combat row level security in search than sending
huge lists of users over the wire.
Have you checked
After searching this list, Google, and looking through the Pugh book, I am a
little confused about the right way to structure a query.
The Packt book uses the example of the MusicBrainz DB full of song metadata.
What if they also had the song lyrics in English and German as files on
disk, and
We are running into some issues with large queries. Initially, they were
ostensibly header buffer overruns, because increasing Jetty's
headerBufferSize value to 65536 resolved them. This seems like a kludge, but
it does solve the problem for 95% of our users.
However, we do have queries that
Yeah, I tried switching to POST.
It seems to be handling the size, but apparently Solr has a limit on the
number of boolean comparisons -- I'm now getting too many boolean clauses
errors emanating from
org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.prepare(QueryComponent.java:108).
:)
I have a data set indexed over two irons, with M docs per Solr core for a
total of N cores.
If I perform a query across all N cores with start=0 and rows=30, I get,
say, numFound=27521). If I simply change the start param to start=27510
(simulating being on the last page of data), I get a
mrw wrote:
I have a data set indexed over two irons, with M docs per Solr core for a
total of N cores.
If I perform a query across all N cores with start=0 and rows=30, I get,
say, numFound=27521). If I simply change the start param to start=27510
(simulating being on the last page
I've noticed that performing a query with facet.mincount=0 and no fq clauses
results in a response where only facets with non-zero counts are returned,
but adding in an fq clause (caused by a user selecting a non-zero-valued
facet value checkbox) actually causes a bunch of 0-count facet values
Notice how, before the fq clause is added, none of the
0-count facets are
returned, even though facet.mincount = 0, but afterward, a
bunch of 0-count
facets are returned?
This is normal.
What's behind that? Is it widening the results before the mincount
constraint is being applied?
I
iorixxx wrote:
After re-reading, it is not normal that none of the 0-count facets are
showing up. Can you give us full parameter list that you obtain this
by adding echoParams=all to your search URL?
May be you limit facets to three in your first query? What happens when
you add
mrw wrote:
We're actually using the default facet.limit value of 100. I will
increase it to 200 and see if the non-zero-count facets show up. Maybe
that was causing my confusion.
Yep -- the 0-count facets were not being returned due to the facet.limit
cutoff.
So, unless
Using Lucid's Solr 1.4 distribution, if I index my email inbox and then
search it by passing in different email expressions, I notice that I get
different results based on whether the '@' character is included, even
though the character is present in every email address in the field I'm
Basically, just what you've suggested. I did the field/query analysis piece
with verbose output. Not entirely sure how to interpret the results, of
course. Currently reading anything I can find on that.
Thanks
Erick Erickson wrote:
What steps have you taken to figure out whether the
29 matches
Mail list logo
