Re: Best field definition which is only use for filter query.

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 08:52, raj.yadav wrote: > > Erik Hatcher-4 wrote >> Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case? > > What is the rationale behind this type change to 'string'. How will it speed > up search/filtering? Will it not increase the index size. Since

Re: Best field definition which is only use for filter query.

pints 1> take up less space (IIRC) 2> are better for range queries. Best, Erick > On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:49 AM, raj.yadav wrote: > > Erik Hatcher-4 wrote >> Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case? > > What is the rationale behind this type change to 'string'. Ho

Re: Best field definition which is only use for filter query.

Erik Hatcher-4 wrote > Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case? What is the rationale behind this type change to 'string'. How will it speed up search/filtering? Will it not increase the index size. Since in general string type takes more space storage then int (not

Re: Best field definition which is only use for filter query.

Erick Erickson wrote > Also, the default pint type is not as efficient for single-value searches > like this, the trie fields are better. Trie support will be kept until > there’s a good alternative for the single-value lookup with pint. > > So for what you’re doing, I’d change to TrieInt, docValu

Re: Best field definition which is only use for filter query.

Wouldn’t a “string” field be as good, if not better, for this use case? > On Jul 22, 2020, at 08:02, Erick Erickson wrote: > > fq clauses are just like the q clause except for two things: > 1> no scoring is done > 2> the entire result set _can_ be stored in the filterCache. > > so if a value i

Re: Best field definition which is only use for filter query.

fq clauses are just like the q clause except for two things: 1> no scoring is done 2> the entire result set _can_ be stored in the filterCache. so if a value isn’t indexed, it can’t be used in either an fq or q clause. The thread you reference is under the assumption (and this is the default in

Best field definition which is only use for filter query.

Below is the sample document *{"filedA": 1,"filedB": "","filedC": "Sher","filedD": "random","rules":[203,7843,43,283,6603,83,513,5303,243,103,323,163,403,363,5333,2483,313,703,523,503,563,8543,1003,483,1083,2043,6523,603,963,683,5353,763,443,643,743,723,1123,843,1243,1663,1803,1403,1783,7563,3

Performance difference between query by id and filter query on property

We're switching to using composite routing in our solr cloud collection, and of course that changes the document id. If I'm setting the document id myself, what is the performance difference between q=id:123!4567 and q=*:*&fq=some_field:4567? Example: Pre-indexed document: - field1: 4567 -

Re: how to add multiple value for a filter query in Solrj

Your original formation of the filter query has two problems: 1> you included a “+” in the value. My guess is that you misinterpreted the URL you got back from the browser in the admin UI where a “+” is a URL-encoded space. You’ll also see a bunch of %XX in the URL which

Re: how to add multiple value for a filter query in Solrj

Thanks Avi, it worked. Raboah, Avi ezt írta (időpont: 2020. márc. 24., K, 11:08): > You can do something like that if we are talking on the same filter query > name. > > addFilterQuery(String.format("%s:(%s %s)", filterName, value1, value2)); > > > -Orig

RE: how to add multiple value for a filter query in Solrj

You can do something like that if we are talking on the same filter query name. addFilterQuery(String.format("%s:(%s %s)", filterName, value1, value2)); -Original Message- From: Szűcs Roland Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2020 11:35 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject:

how to add multiple value for a filter query in Solrj

Hi All, I use Solr 8.4.1 and the latest solrj client. There is a field let's which can have 3 different values. If I use the admin UI, I write to the fq the following: filterName:"value1" filterName:"value2" and it is working as expected. If I use solrJ SolrQuery.addFilterQuery method and call it

Odata filter query to Solr query

Hi All, Do we have any library which can convert Odata filter to Solr Query EX : $filter=Address eq 'Redmond' to ?q=Address:Redmond Any suggestions will help. Thanks Sambasiva

Re: Excluding a block join filter query during faceting

q= > > &fq={!parent which="my_doc_type:Parent"}child_doc_some_field:("30") > > > > I now want to facet on certain parent field but want to exclude the above > > filter query condition entirely. If I had a normal filter query, > > fq={!tag=test

Re: Excluding a block join filter query during faceting

to return parent documents when child > documents are matched. > Eg: > q= > &fq={!parent which="my_doc_type:Parent"}child_doc_some_field:("30") > > I now want to facet on certain parent field but want to exclude the above > filter query condition entirely. If

Excluding a block join filter query during faceting

but want to exclude the above filter query condition entirely. If I had a normal filter query, fq={!tag=test}parent_doc_field1:("30") then I could use that as my exclude tag while faceting. facet.field={!ex=test}parent_doc_field2&... But turns out I cannot do that with a block join filte

Re: Large Filter Query

Thanks, David, Shawn, Jagdish Help and suggestions are really appreciated. Regards, Lucky Sharma On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:50 AM Shawn Heisey wrote: > > On 6/26/2019 12:56 PM, Lucky Sharma wrote: > > @Shawn: Sorry I forgot to mention the corpus size: the corpus size is > > around 3 million doc

Re: Large Filter Query

On 6/26/2019 12:56 PM, Lucky Sharma wrote: @Shawn: Sorry I forgot to mention the corpus size: the corpus size is around 3 million docs, where we need to query for 1500 docs and run aggregations, sorting, search on them. Assuming the documents aren't HUGE, that sounds like something Solr should

Re: Large Filter Query

Then term query parser is best way to do that. You can check below link for performance detail. http://yonik.com/solr-terms-query/ n Thu, 27 Jun, 2019, 12:31 AM Lucky Sharma, wrote: > Thanks, Jagdish > But what if we need to perform search and filtering on those 1.5k doc > ids results, also fo

Re: Large Filter Query

yeah there is a performance hit but that is expected. in my scenario i pass sometimes a few thousand using this method, but i pre-process my results since its a set. you will not have any issues if you are using POST with the uri length. On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 3:02 PM Lucky Sharma wrote: > Th

Re: Large Filter Query

Thanks, Jagdish But what if we need to perform search and filtering on those 1.5k doc ids results, also for URI error, we can go with the POST approach, and what if the data is not sharded. Regards, Lucky Sharma On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:28 AM jai dutt wrote: > > 1. No Solr is not for id search

Re: Large Filter Query

1. No Solr is not for id search. rdms a better option. 2. Yes correct it going to impact query performance. And you may got large uri error. 3 ya you can pass ids internally by writing any custom parser.or divide data into different shard. On Thu, 27 Jun, 2019, 12:01 AM Lucky Sharma, wrot

Re: Large Filter Query

@Shawn: Sorry I forgot to mention the corpus size: the corpus size is around 3 million docs, where we need to query for 1500 docs and run aggregations, sorting, search on them. @David: But will that not be a performance hit (resource incentive)? since it will have that many terms to search upon, t

Re: Large Filter Query

you can use the !terms operator and send them separated by a comma: {!terms f=id}id1,id2,..id1499,id1500 and run facets normally On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 2:31 PM Lucky Sharma wrote: > Hi all, > > What we are doing is, we will be having a set of unique Ids of solr > document at max 1500, we

Re: Large Filter Query

On 6/26/2019 12:31 PM, Lucky Sharma wrote: What we are doing is, we will be having a set of unique Ids of solr document at max 1500, we need to run faceting and sorting among them. there is no direct search involved. It's a head-on search since we already know the document unique keys beforehand.

Large Filter Query

Hi all, What we are doing is, we will be having a set of unique Ids of solr document at max 1500, we need to run faceting and sorting among them. there is no direct search involved. It's a head-on search since we already know the document unique keys beforehand. 1. Is Solr a better use case for s

Re: Solr filter query on text fields

such >> as >>> ps? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Wei >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:51 PM Shawn Heisey >> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/24/2019 5:37 PM, Wei wrote: >>>>> >>> stored="true"/&

Re: Solr filter query on text fields

hey are not > >> actually present. This can be very confusing. It is far better to > >> relay the precise information and not try to emphasize anything. > >> > >>> For query q=*:*&fq=description:”ice cream”, the filter query returns > >>> matches

Re: Solr filter query on text fields

5:37 PM, Wei wrote: >>> > stored="true"/> >> >> I'm assuming that the asterisks here are for emphasis, that they are not >> actually present. This can be very confusing. It is far better to >> relay the precise information and not try to emphasiz

Re: Solr filter query on text fields

sent. This can be very confusing. It is far better to > relay the precise information and not try to emphasize anything. > > > For query q=*:*&fq=description:”ice cream”, the filter query returns > > matches for “ice cream bar” and “vanilla ice cream” , but does not match &

Re: Solr filter query on text fields

am”, the filter query returns matches for “ice cream bar” and “vanilla ice cream” , but does not match for “ice cold cream”. The results seem neither exact match nor phrase match. What's the expected behavior for fq on text fields? I have tried to look into the solr docs but there is no cle

Solr filter query on text fields

Hi, I have always been using solr fq on string fields. Recently I need to apply fq on one text field defined as follows: For query q=*:*&fq=description:”ice cream”, the filter query returns matches for “ice c

Suggest highlight is not working with context filter query

Hello Team, I am not able to get highlighted terms from the Suggest component when using a context filter query. My definition of the suggest search component looks as follows. mySuggester BlendedInfixLookupFactory position_linear DocumentDictionaryFactory

Re: Softer version of grouping and/or filter query

> Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 18:56, Doug Reeder > > escreveu: > > > > > > > > Similarly, we have a filter query that only returns products over $150: > > > fq=price:[150+TO+*] > > > > > > Can this be changed to a q or qf parameter where products less th

Re: Softer version of grouping and/or filter query

Thanks much! I dropped price from the fq term, changed to an edismax parser, and boosted with bq=price:[150+TO+*]^100 On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 7:21 AM Edward Ribeiro wrote: > Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 18:56, Doug Reeder > escreveu: > > > > > Similarly, we have a filter qu

Re: Softer version of grouping and/or filter query

Em qua, 8 de mai de 2019 18:56, Doug Reeder escreveu: > > Similarly, we have a filter query that only returns products over $150: > fq=price:[150+TO+*] > > Can this be changed to a q or qf parameter where products less than $150 > have score less than any product priced $150

Re: Softer version of grouping and/or filter query

ome categories > don't have a lot of products, and grouping takes us (say) from five results > to three. > > Can I "soften" the grouping, so other products by the same vendor will > appear in the results, but with much lower score? > > > Similarly, we have

Softer version of grouping and/or filter query

ping takes us (say) from five results to three. Can I "soften" the grouping, so other products by the same vendor will appear in the results, but with much lower score? Similarly, we have a filter query that only returns products over $150: fq=price:[150+TO+*] Can this be changed to a

Re: Search using filter query on multivalued fields

NGREDIENT_NO": [ > > "550", > > "297", > > "314" > >], > > "COMPOSITION PERCENTAGE": [ > > 20, > > 60, > > 40 > > ], > > > > Simi

Re: Search using filter query on multivalued fields

: [ > 20, > 60, > 40 >], > > Similar to this, many other records are also indexed. These are multi-valued > fields. > > I have a requirement to search all the records which has ingredient name salt > and it's composition pe

Search using filter query on multivalued fields

], "COMPOSITION PERCENTAGE": [ 20, 60, 40 ], Similar to this, many other records are also indexed. These are multi-valued fields. I have a requirement to search all the records which has ingredient name salt and it's composition percent

Blockjoin with Filter Query on Child Doc Result Set

Hello, Is there a good way to do Solr Parent blockjoins with filter queries on children (i.e. the results of the children query set affect the filter on the children of the filter query)? Solr has a convenient way of doing filter queries on the result set of parent block joins. E.g. |q={!parent

Frange Alternative in the filter query

Hi, I have created a value source parser ,to use the parser in the filter query i was using the frange function,But using the frange function is giving the really bad performance (4x of current),my value source parser performance is almost same when used in sort and fl ,Only performance

Re: Solr 7.2.1 Stream API throws null pointer execption when used with collapse filter query

File a JIRA issue please On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 5:20 PM gopikannan wrote: > Hi, >I am getting null pointer exception when streaming search is done with > collapse filter query. When debugged the last element in FixedBitSet array > is null. Please let me know if I can ra

Solr 7.2.1 Stream API throws null pointer execption when used with collapse filter query

Hi, I am getting null pointer exception when streaming search is done with collapse filter query. When debugged the last element in FixedBitSet array is null. Please let me know if I can raise an issue. https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/solr/core/src/java/org/apache/solr

Re: Solr filter query on STRING field [Was:Re: solr filter query on text field]

, 4:59 AM Marek Tichy, wrote: > Hi, > > I'm having troubles with the filter query on a multiple string field, > specifically with a space between words. Looking at the histogram and > values using Solr UI it correctly shows that the indexing stores the > string "Key cas

Solr filter query on STRING field [Was:Re: solr filter query on text field]

Hi, I'm having troubles with the filter query on a multiple string field, specifically with a space between words. Looking at the histogram and values using Solr UI it correctly shows that the indexing stores the string "Key case" as it should. However the following filt

Re: solr filter query on text field

thing like mytextfield:jurassic OR >>> mytextfiekd:park... >>> (it's not exactly an OR but this could give you the idea= >>> >>> The third example is not doing what you think. My_text_field is used only >>> with the first term (Jurassic) while the othe

Re: solr filter query on text field

;> with the first term (Jurassic) while the others are using the default >> field. Something like mytextfield:jurassic OR defaultfield:park OR >> defaultfield:the That's the reason you have so many results (I guess >> the default field is a catch-all field) >> >>

Re: solr filter query on text field

default field is a catch-all field) > > Sorry for typos I'm using my mobile > > Andrea > > Il mer 11 lug 2018, 17:54 Wei ha scritto: > > > Hi, > > > > I am running filter query on a field of text_general type and see > > completely differe

Re: solr filter query on text field

l field) Sorry for typos I'm using my mobile Andrea Il mer 11 lug 2018, 17:54 Wei ha scritto: > Hi, > > I am running filter query on a field of text_general type and see > completely different results for the following queries: > >fq= my_text_field:"Juras

Re: solr filter query on text field

, 2018 at 8:54 AM, Wei wrote: > Hi, > > I am running filter query on a field of text_general type and see > completely different results for the following queries: > >fq= my_text_field:"Jurassic park the movie" returns 0 > result > >

solr filter query on text field

Hi, I am running filter query on a field of text_general type and see completely different results for the following queries: fq= my_text_field:"Jurassic park the movie" returns 0 result fq= my_text_field:(Jurassic park the movie) returns 20 res

Re: How to exclude certain values in multi-value field filter query

Thanks Mikhail and Alessandro. On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:37 AM, Mikhail Khludnev wrote: > you need to index num vals > apache/solr/update/processor/CountFieldValuesUpdateProcessorFactory.html> > in the separate field, and then *:* -(V:(A AN

Re: How to exclude certain values in multi-value field filter query

you need to index num vals in the separate field, and then *:* -(V:(A AND B) AND numVals:2) -(V:(A OR B) AND numVals:1) On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 9:20 AM Wei wrote: > Hi,

Re: How to exclude certain values in multi-value field filter query

The first idea that comes in my mind is to build a single valued copy field which concatenates them. in this way you will have very specific values to filter on : query1 -(copyfield:(A B AB)) To concatenate you can use this update request processor : https://lucene.apache.org/solr/6_6_0//solr-cor

How to exclude certain values in multi-value field filter query

Hi, I have a multi-value field, and there is a limited set of values for the field: A, B, C, D. Is there a way to filter out documents that has only A or B values in the multi-value field? Basically I want to exclude document that has: A B A B and get documents that has: C D C D A C B

Re: Filter Query with conditional fields

018, at 11:02, jcondotta wrote: >> >> Hi Folks, I've started on Solr World short time ago, I've been working on >> some filter query changes, the most of question that I've had i could >> understand, reading this forum, thanks a lot. >> >> I'

Re: Filter Query with conditional fields

condotta wrote: > > Hi Folks, I've started on Solr World short time ago, I've been working on > some filter query changes, the most of question that I've had i could > understand, reading this forum, thanks a lot. > > I've a situation, on my schema there a

Filter Query with conditional fields

Hi Folks, I've started on Solr World short time ago, I've been working on some filter query changes, the most of question that I've had i could understand, reading this forum, thanks a lot. I've a situation, on my schema there are 2 fields that I've to check: latestEvent

Re: Filter query question

is re-fired with fq filter: fq: status:(11I OR 12I OR 13I ) This was very very inefficient. Filter query response time was longer than same search without filter! How many different status values are you including in that query?  And how many unique values are there in the status field

Re: Filter query question

; On status value click, search is re-fired with fq filter: > > fq: status:(11I OR 12I OR 13I ....) > > This was very very inefficient. Filter query response time was longer than > same search without filter! > > We have changed status value in Solr database for corresponding t

Filter query question

OR 13I ) This was very very inefficient. Filter query response time was longer than same search without filter! We have changed status value in Solr database for corresponding to visual filter values. In consequence, there is no OR in the fq filter. The performance is better now. What is

Re: Bad request from solr by just changing the order in the filter query

On 4/7/2018 1:54 PM, Elier Delgado wrote: Thanks Shawn, your query works but the facet counters became inconsistent. What *exactly* was wrong?  Is it possible that it was working the way it was designed to work, but different than you expected?  If you really think what you're getting is wron

Re: Bad request from solr by just changing the order in the filter query

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote: > On 3/31/2018 10:22 AM, Elier Delgado wrote: > >> Hi, I'm working with facets in solr 7.2.1. Basically I'm following this >> tutorial: >> http://yonik.com/multi-select-faceting/ >> >> The following solr request works just fine: >> >> &json.

Re: Bad request from solr by just changing the order in the filter query

On 3/31/2018 10:22 AM, Elier Delgado wrote: Hi, I'm working with facets in solr 7.2.1. Basically I'm following this tutorial: http://yonik.com/multi-select-faceting/ The following solr request works just fine: &json.facet={domains:{type:terms,field:domains,domain:{excludeTags:DOMAIN}},special

Bad request from solr by just changing the order in the filter query

Hi, I'm working with facets in solr 7.2.1. Basically I'm following this tutorial: http://yonik.com/multi-select-faceting/ The following solr request works just fine: &json.facet={domains:{type:terms,field:domains,domain:{excludeTags:DOMAIN}},specialties:{type:terms,field:specialties,domain:{excl

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

1) Diego's observation about IDF is absolutely correct here, but I don't think he was pointing it to be a negative aspect of your new approach. I think he just wanted to warn you about this. The way BM25 uses the IDF feature of a term is to estimate how important is the term in the context ( givin

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

pache.org > Subject: Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query > results using non-indexed and dynamic range values > > Hi, > > first of all, thank you for your answers. > > @ Rick: the reason is that the set of pages that are stored into the disk > rep

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

different - since idf will be computed on all the documents that you have in the collection. Cheers, Diego From: solr-user@lucene.apache.org At: 01/31/18 20:12:16To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed a

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Hi, I did not check it in code, but based on earlier comments on ML, it seems that in place updates are not as it sounds - it will rewrite doc values for the segment that is updated. If you really want to avoid index changes, you can maybe use external field: https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guid

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Reading from the wiki [1]: " An atomic update operation is performed using this approach only when the fields to be updated meet these three conditions: are non-indexed (indexed="false"), non-stored (stored="false"), single valued (multiValued="false") numeric docValues (docValues="true") fields

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Hi, first of all, thank you for your answers. @ Rick: the reason is that the set of pages that are stored into the disk represents just a static view of the Web, in order to let my experiments be fully replicable. My need is to run simulations of different crawlers on top of it, each working on t

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Luigi Is there a reason for not indexing all of your on-disk pages? That seems to be the first step. But I do not understand what your goal is. Cheers -- Rick On January 30, 2018 1:33:27 PM EST, Luigi Caiazza wrote: >Hello, > >I am working on a project that simulates a selective, large-scale >cr

Re:Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

-hood.html From: solr-user@lucene.apache.org At: 01/30/18 18:42:01To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values Hello, I am working on a project that simulates a selective, large-scale

Re: Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

I am not sure I fully understood your use case, but let me suggest few different possible solutions : 1) Query Time join approach : you keep 2 collections, one static with all the pages, one that just store lighweight documents containing the crawling interaction : 1) Id, content -> Pages 2)pageId

Searching for an efficient and scalable way to filter query results using non-indexed and dynamic range values

Hello, I am working on a project that simulates a selective, large-scale crawling. The system adapts its behaviour according with some external user queries received at crawling time. Briefly, it analyzes the already crawled pages in the top-k results for each query, and prioritizes the visit of t

programmatically setting filter query not working for me

My use case is programmatically setting a query filter before executing the query. I have a search component in the /select first-components list. This component determines the filter query value and sets it in the process method. I pass in a custom param to trigger the filter creation I grab

Re: After upgrade to Solr 6.5, q.op=AND affects filter query differently than in older version

ering generating an additional field "ctindex_populated" that > would contain true or false depending on whether a ctindex value is > present. And then changing the filter query to: > > fq=ctindex_populated:false OR ctindex:myId > > Would this be more efficient than your propo

Re: After upgrade to Solr 6.5, q.op=AND affects filter query differently than in older version

Thanks for the response Shawn. Adding "*:*" in front of my filter query does indeed resolve the issue. It seems odd to me that the fully negated query does work if I don't set q.op=AND. I guess this must be "adding complexity". Actually I just discovered that that simpl

Re: After upgrade to Solr 6.5, q.op=AND affects filter query differently than in older version

present in a subset of documents. It basically > contains a user id. For those documents where it is present, I only want > documents returned where the ctindex value matches the id of the user > performing the search. Documents with no ctindex value should be returned > as well. > > Th

After upgrade to Solr 6.5, q.op=AND affects filter query differently than in older version

documents where it is present, I only want documents returned where the ctindex value matches the id of the user performing the search. Documents with no ctindex value should be returned as well. This is implemented through a filter query that excludes documents that contain some other value in th

Re: Distributed Search (across collections) + partial Filter query

Hi all, thanks to Andrea Gazzarini suggestion I solved it using local params ( which is different from macro expansion even if conceptually similar). Local params were available in Solr 4.10.x I appended this filter query in the request handler of interest: {!lucene df=filterField v

Distributed Search (across collections) + partial Filter query

passing a new request parameter : 1) collection1 request handler would have used it to append a new filter query 2) collection2 request handler would have discarded it doing nothing Unfortunately in the Solr version I am , macro expansion was not there yet.[1] I will continue thinking on it but if you

Support Multiple (AND) Context Filter Query in Suggestor

Just as the normal query, usually we want to use multiple filter query when run auto-completion. It would be great if suggestor can return (the title of) doc that is meaningful to the current user where we need multiple filters. I am wondering whether it's possible in the current Sol

Re: [JSON Faceting] Domain filter query

; > Let's assume I don't want to change at all my schema. > Is there a way to specify for some facet a domain ( the collapse filter > query), while for others not ? > I was taking a look to this : http://yonik.com/facet-domains/ which is > conceptually similar to what I am d

[JSON Faceting] Domain filter query

ume I don't want to change at all my schema. Is there a way to specify for some facet a domain ( the collapse filter query), while for others not ? I was taking a look to this : http://yonik.com/facet-domains/ which is conceptually similar to what I am describing but at the moment does not support

Re: Filter Query that matches all values of a field

: present in the allowed values specified in the filter. : How can i write filter query for this? My prefered solution is: 1) index the *unique* values as a multivalued StrField (ex: foo) 2) create a second field containing the *count* of unique values, CountFieldValuesUpdateProcessorFactory

Re: Filter Query that matches all values of a field

stores some sort of access value. In the filter, I am given a list of allowed values for the field and a document must be considered if all values contained in its field must be present in the allowed values specified in the filter. How can i write filter query for this? To illustrate this further: If

Filter Query that matches all values of a field

the allowed values specified in the filter. How can i write filter query for this? To illustrate this further: If a field "field1" in a document contains (a1, a3, a5) values. 1. Case #1) If the allowed values specified in the filter are (a1, a3, a4, a6) --> the document

Filter query wrt main query on block join

Hi, I have indexed nested documents into solr. How do I filter on the main query using block join query? Here is what I have in the sense of documents: Document A -> id, name, title, is_parent=true Document B -> id, x,y,z Document C -> id, a , b Document B & C are child to A. I want to get al

Re: Slow date filter query

> see: > searchhub.org/2012/02/23/date-math-now-and-filter-queries/ > > If you're not re-using the _same_ filter query, you'll be better > off using fq={!cache=false}range_query > > Best, > Erick > > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Erick Erickson > wrote: >

Re: Slow date filter query

Oops, fat fingers. see: searchhub.org/2012/02/23/date-math-now-and-filter-queries/ If you're not re-using the _same_ filter query, you'll be better off using fq={!cache=false}range_query Best, Erick On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > That does seem long, bu

Re: Slow date filter query

That does seem long, but you haven't provided many details about the fields. Are there 100 docs in your index? 100M docs? 500M docs? Are you using NOW in appropriately? See: On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jay Potharaju wrote: > Hi, > I am running filter query(range query) on date

Slow date filter query

Hi, I am running filter query(range query) on date fields(high cardinality) and the performance is really bad ...it takes about 2-5 seconds for it to come back with response. I am rebuilding the index to have docvalues & tdates instead of "date" field. But not sure if that will

Re: collapsing on a filter query

t; > > -- > View this message in context: > http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/collapsing-on-a-filter-query-tp4279218p4279225.html > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Re: collapsing on a filter query

message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/collapsing-on-a-filter-query-tp4279218p4279225.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: collapsing on a filter query

rote: > hi there, > > I can't seem to find a way to collapse results on a filter query. For > example, imagine that I have a query with filter is_valid:true. Now, if I > want to collapse the results on another field than is_valid (i.e user_id), > neither of the following work

collapsing on a filter query

hi there, I can't seem to find a way to collapse results on a filter query. For example, imagine that I have a query with filter is_valid:true. Now, if I want to collapse the results on another field than is_valid (i.e user_id), neither of the following works: fq=is_valid:true AND {!col

Re: Adding information to Solr response in custom filter query code?

: Is there any way a custom search component can access data created in custom : post filter query so that the data can be added to the response? Yes - this is exactly what the example i mentioned in my previous message do -- as i said before... >> Take a look at the CollapseQParser (wh

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >