name=sku_newA 1280 C/field
/doc
/add
Doing a query for A 1280 C and requesting highlighting throws the
exception (full stack trace below):
http://localhost:8983/solr/select/?q=sku_new%3A%22A+1280+C%22version=2.2start=0rows=10indent=onhl=onhl.fl=sku_newfl=*
If I comment out
=highlighting
lst name=0ad4d4fe-cff8-43c8-b5d2-cf86c71b044c/
...
It is okey to query one field, and request highlight from another field. But to
get highlight, first you need a match. I see that type of variableEltDDIXML is
string which is not tokenized at all.
/select/?q
Hi,
I'm trying to highlight short text values. The field they came from has
a type shared with other fields. I have highlighting working on other
fields but not on this one.
Why ?
xavier.schep...@sciences-po.fr wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to highlight short text values. The field they came from has a
type shared with other fields. I have highlighting working on other fields
but not on this one.
Why ?
AM, Xavier Schepler
xavier.schep...@sciences-po.fr wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to highlight short text values. The field they came from has a
type shared with other fields. I have highlighting working on other fields
but not on this one.
Why ?
Thanks for your response.
Here are some
, darniz wrote:
i have a requirement where we dont want to hightlight synonym matches.
for example i search for caddy and i dont want to highlight matched
synonym
like cadillac.
Looking at highlighting parameters i didn't find any support for this.
anyone can offer any advice.
You can control
I think what Erik was referring to was for you to create a separate copy
field with different analyzers and just copy the original value to that copy
field and index it differently.
That way you can use one field for search and another one to display the
highlighting results.
On Mon, Dec 28
Thomas - this is a common need that deserves some implementation. I
have a personal interest in seeing this implemented and will do so
myself eventually if no one beats me to it.
There's a Solr JIRA issue to track this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1397
Erik
On Dec
Hi Guys.
i have a requirement where we dont want to hightlight synonym matches.
for example i search for caddy and i dont want to highlight matched synonym
like cadillac.
Looking at highlighting parameters i didn't find any support for this.
anyone can offer any advice.
darniz
--
View
On Dec 23, 2009, at 2:26 PM, darniz wrote:
i have a requirement where we dont want to hightlight synonym matches.
for example i search for caddy and i dont want to highlight matched
synonym
like cadillac.
Looking at highlighting parameters i didn't find any support for this.
anyone can offer
Hi,
I'm working on a news crawler with continuous indexing. Thus indexes are
merged frequently and older documents aren't as important as recent ones.
Therefor I'd like to store the fulltext of documents in an external storage
(HBase?) so that merging of indexes isn't as IO intensive. This
Hi all,
I came across this issue when I was exploring the solr FunctionQuery. Hope
anyone of you can help me on this:
I need to combine the score of a normal key word search with one numeric
field in the index to form a new score. So I use the query() function
provided in the FunctionQuery,
So
Hello list,
I'm new to solr but from what I'm experimenting, it's awesome.
I have a small issue regarding the highlighting feature.
It finds stuff (as I see from the query analyzer), but the highlight list
looks something like this:
lst name=highlighting
lst name=c:\0596520107.pdf/
lst name=c
Mysak chuck.my...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello list,
I'm new to solr but from what I'm experimenting, it's awesome.
I have a small issue regarding the highlighting feature.
It finds stuff (as I see from the query analyzer), but the highlight list
looks something like this:
lst name=highlighting
I'm testing out the final release of Solr 1.4 as compared to the build
I have been using from around June.
I'm using hte dismax handler for searches. I'm finding that
highlighting is completely broken as compared to previously. Much
more text is returned than it should for each string in lst
to the build
I have been using from around June.
I'm using hte dismax handler for searches. I'm finding that
highlighting is completely broken as compared to previously. Much
more text is returned than it should for each string in lst
name=highlighting, but the search words are never highlighted
limit as your
highlighting field. Works well in my case.
Thanks for the tip. We did think about doing something similar (only
enabling highlighting for certain shorter fields) but we decided that
perhaps users would be confused if search terms were sometimes
snippeted+highlighted and sometimes
Hi,
I've seen the use case for highlighting on:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldOptionsByUseCase
I just wanted to confirm that for best performance
Indexed=true
Stored=true
termVectors=true
termPositions=true
is the way to go for highlighting for Solr 1.4. Note that I'm not doing
anything
Hi Andrew,
Alternatively, you could use a copyfield with a maxChars limit as your
highlighting field. Works well in my case.
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-538
Nicolas
2009/11/5 Andrew Clegg andrew.cl...@gmail.com
Indeed -- it actually went slightly slower but only by a few
Nicolas Dessaigne wrote:
Alternatively, you could use a copyfield with a maxChars limit as your
highlighting field. Works well in my case.
Thanks for the tip. We did think about doing something similar (only
enabling highlighting for certain shorter fields) but we decided that
perhaps
That was exactly the problem, thanks!
Jake Brownell wrote:
By default the highlighter only considers the first 50k of text. See
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/HighlightingParameters#hl.maxAnalyzedChars
Obviously the larger the size, the longer highlighting will take. When I get no
highlights, I
the pros of each to determine
which best suits are needs.
Jake
-Original Message-
From: Mark Miller [mailto:markrmil...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 11:23 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Cc: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Highlighting performance between 1.3
not with those really long response
times). Fixed by moving to JRE 1.6 and tuning garbage collection.
Bye,
Jaco.
2009/11/3 Andrew Clegg andrew.cl...@gmail.com
Hi everyone,
I'm experimenting with highlighting for the first time, and it seems
shockingly slow for some queries.
For example
: Has anyone else seen this sort of behaviour before? This is with a nightly
: from 2009-10-26.
have you tried hl.usePhraseHighlighter=false ? ...
http://old.nabble.com/Highlighting-performance-between-1.3-and-1.4rc-to26190790.html
...it doesn't seem like it should be affecting you
/Highlighting-performance-between-1.3-and-1.4rc-to26190790.html
...it doesn't seem like it should be affecting you for a simple term
query, but i'm not sure.
-Hoss
and Lucene
2.9.1. One of our integration tests, which runs against and embedded
server appears to be failing on highlighting. I've included the stack
trace and the configuration from solrconf. I'd appreciate any
insights. Please let me know what additional information would be
useful.
Caused
Hi everyone,
I'm experimenting with highlighting for the first time, and it seems
shockingly slow for some queries.
For example, this query:
http://server:8080/solr/select/?q=transferaseqt=dismaxversion=2.2start=0rows=10indent=on
takes 313ms. But when I add highlighting:
http://server:8080
including the text of
the book. It searches either the exact title (in quotes) or the ISBN.
Highlighting is enabled on the field that holds the text of the book.
An advanced search uses a nested dismax (inside a normal Lucene), to search for
either the exact title (in quotes) or the ISBN. The main
@lucene.apache.org
Cc: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Highlighting performance between 1.3 and 1.4rc
The 1.4 highlighter is Now slower if you have multi term queries or
phrase queries. You can get the old behavior (which is faster) if you
pass usePhraseHighlighter=false - but you
Hi,
I've tried installing the latest (3rd) RC for Solr 1.4 and Lucene 2.9.1. One of
our integration tests, which runs against and embedded server appears to be
failing on highlighting. I've included the stack trace and the configuration
from solrconf. I'd appreciate any insights. Please let me
...@benetech.org wrote:
Hi,
I've tried installing the latest (3rd) RC for Solr 1.4 and Lucene
2.9.1. One of our integration tests, which runs against and embedded
server appears to be failing on highlighting. I've included the
stack trace and the configuration from solrconf. I'd appreciate any
, at 5:17 PM, Jake Brownell ja...@benetech.org wrote:
Hi,
I've tried installing the latest (3rd) RC for Solr 1.4 and Lucene
2.9.1. One of our integration tests, which runs against and embedded
server appears to be failing on highlighting. I've included the stack
trace and the configuration from
Hi list,
is there any possibility to get highlighting also for the query string?
Example:
Query: fooo bar
Tokens after query analysis: foo[0,4], bar[5,8]
Token foo matches a token of one of the queried fields.
- Query higlighting: fooo
Thanks, Patrick
I'm not an expert on hit highlighting but please find some answers inline:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Nourredine K. nourredin...@yahoo.comwrote:
Hi,
Can you please give me some answers for those questions :
1 - How can I get synonyms found for a keyword ?
I mean i search foo and i
I'm not an expert on hit highlighting but please find some answers inline:
Thanks Shalin for your answers. It helps a lot.
I post again questions #3 and #4 for the others :)
3 - Is it possible and if so How can I configure solR to set or not highlighting
for tokens with diacritics
4 - the same question for highlighting with lemmatisation?
Settings for manage (all highlighted) == the two wordsemmanage/em
and
emmanagement/em are highlighted
Settings for manage == the first word emmanage/em is highlighted
but
not the second : management
There is no Lemmatisation
Thanks Avlesh.
Now, I understand better how higtlighting works.
As you've said, since it is based on the analysers, higtlighting will handle
things like search.
A precision about #3 and #4 examples , they are exclusives : I wanted to know
how to do higtlighting with stemming OR without (not
often appears with fee in a field, it will associate
the 2 tokens.
3 - Is it possible and if so How can I configure solR to set or not
highlighting for tokens with diacritics ?
Settings for vélo (all highlighted) == the two words emvélo/em and
emvelo/em are highlighted
Settings for vélo
Like most others, I use SolrJ and bind my beans with @Field annotations to
read responses from Solr.
For highlighting these properties in my bean, I always write a separate
piece - Get the list of highlights from response and then use the
MapfieldName, Listhighlights to put them back in my
- Is it possible and if so How can I configure solR to set or not
highlighting for tokens with diacritics ?
Settings for vélo (all highlighted) == the two words emvélo/em and
emvelo/em are highlighted
Settings for vélo == the first word emvélo/em is highlighted but not
the second : velo
4
Hi Koji et.al,
You say https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1268 is an open
issue for the ngram highlighting problem, but it seems to refer to
something unrelated.
Can you/anyone confirm that it is not possible to use highlighting
with an ngram tokenizer/filter..
Thanks,
Aodh.
-highlighter/org/apache/lucene/search/vectorhighlight/package-summary.html
Thanks,
Koji
aod...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Koji et.al,
You say https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1268 is an open
issue for the ngram highlighting problem, but it seems to refer to
something unrelated.
Can you/anyone
But it would seem that Lucene has always supported highlighting on
NGram fields? as show by the example here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1489
When I try to use highlighting with NGramming, none of the text is
highlighted, and instead I get a long string in the highlighting
I am new to the whole highlighting API and have a few basic questions:
I have a text type field defined as underneath:
fieldType name=text class=solr.TextField positionIncrementGap=100
analyzer type=index
tokenizer class=solr.WhitespaceTokenizerFactory/
filter class
If I do a query for a couple of words in quotes, Solr correctly only returns
pages where those words appear exactly within the quotes. But the
highlighting acts as if the words were given separately, and stems them and
everything. For example, if I search for knee pain, it returns a document
. But the
highlighting acts as if the words were given separately, and stems them and
everything. For example, if I search for knee pain, it returns a document
that has the word knee pain, and doesn't return documents that have knee
and pain without other words between them. However, with highlighting
turned
to highlight on this field does not yield any results.
Highlighting on other fields work fine.
Any clues? I am using Solr 1.3
Cheers
Avlesh
Searches on the field work fine and as expected.
However, attempts to highlight on this field does not yield any results.
Highlighting on other fields work fine.
Won't work until SOLR-1268 comes along.
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/4da480fe3eb0e7e4
.
However, attempts to highlight on this field does not yield any results.
Highlighting on other fields work fine.
Won't work until SOLR-1268 comes along.
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search/document/4da480fe3eb0e7e4/highlighting_in_stemmed_or_n_grammed_fields_possible
--
Regards
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Avlesh Singh avl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmmm .. But ngrams with KeywordTokenizerFactory instead of the
WhitespaceTokenizerFactory work just as fine. Related issues?
I'm sorry I don't understand the question. Do you mean to say that
highlighting works with one
I'm sorry I don't understand the question. Do you mean to say that
highlighting works with one but not with another?
Yes.
Cheers
Avlesh
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar
shalinman...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Avlesh Singh avl...@gmail.com
Hi,
Anybody knows how to get the highlighted field, when q term matches in a
stemmed or n-grammed filtered field?
Matching in a normal field (not stemmed or n-grammed) highlighting works
perfectly as expected. But in stemmed matching cases, no highlighting fields
are recovered, and in n
In stemmed matching cases, highlighter should work correctly.
For example, using example data, I can get highlighted snippets
that include emmemory/em when quering features:memories.
With respect to highlighting in n-gram field, Solr cannot highlight
terms in out-of-the-box. We have an open
Hi,
Anybody knows how to get the highlighted field, when q term matches in a
stemmed or n-grammed filtered field?
Matching in a normal field (not stemmed or n-grammed) highlighting works
perfectly as expected. But in stemmed matching cases, no highlighting fields
are recovered, and in n
somebody point me to some sample code for using highlighting in
SolrJ? I understand the highlighted versions of the field comes in a
separate NamedList? How does that work?
--
http://www.linkedin.com/in/paultomblin
--
Regards,
Shalin Shekhar Mangar
+ : + category);
if (maxChunks 0)
query.setRows(maxChunks);
// Set highlighting fields
query.setHighlight(true);
query.setHighlightFragsize(0);
query.addHighlightField(Chunk.SOLR_KEY_TEXT);
query.setHighlightSnippets(1
);
}
}
Hope that gets you what you need.
-Jay
http://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Paul Tomblin ptomb...@xcski.com
wrote:
Can somebody point me to some sample code for using highlighting in
SolrJ? I understand the highlighted versions of the field comes
.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Jay Hill jayallenh...@gmail.com wrote:
It's really just a matter of what you're intentions are. There are an awful
lot of highlighting params and so highlighting is very flexible and
customizable. Regarding snippets, as an example Google presents two snippets
It's really just a matter of what you're intentions are. There are an awful
lot of highlighting params and so highlighting is very flexible and
customizable. Regarding snippets, as an example Google presents two snippets
in results, which is fairly common. I'd recommend doing a lot
really just a matter of what you're intentions are. There are an
awful
lot of highlighting params and so highlighting is very flexible and
customizable. Regarding snippets, as an example Google presents two
snippets
in results, which is fairly common. I'd recommend doing a lot
Can somebody point me to some sample code for using highlighting in
SolrJ? I understand the highlighted versions of the field comes in a
separate NamedList? How does that work?
--
http://www.linkedin.com/in/paultomblin
://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Paul Tomblin ptomb...@xcski.com wrote:
Can somebody point me to some sample code for using highlighting in
SolrJ? I understand the highlighted versions of the field comes in a
separate NamedList? How does that work?
--
http://www.linkedin.com
://www.lucidimagination.com
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Paul Tomblin ptomb...@xcski.com wrote:
Can somebody point me to some sample code for using highlighting in
SolrJ? I understand the highlighted versions of the field comes in a
separate NamedList? How does that work?
--
http
get
results but no highlights :(
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 12:12 PM, AHMET ARSLAN iori...@yahoo.com wrote:
I currently have highlighting working, but when I search for
Query: smith~ category_id:(1 OR 2 OR 3)
Results: name: Mr. John emSmith/em,
addresses: em1/em Main St, NYC,
NY, 55em2
--- On Wed, 9/9/09, John Eberly j...@eberly.org wrote:
From: John Eberly j...@eberly.org
Subject: Re: Highlighting... is highlighting too many fields
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2009, 7:12 PM
Thanks Ahmet,
Your second suggestion about using the filter
I currently have highlighting working, but when I search for
Query: smith~ category_id:(1 OR 2 OR 3)
Results: name: Mr. John emSmith/em, addresses: em1/em Main St, NYC,
NY, 55em2/em666
Why does it show highlights on the addresses, when I specifically sent in a
query for category_id? When I set
I currently have highlighting working, but when I search for
Query: smith~ category_id:(1 OR 2 OR 3)
Results: name: Mr. John emSmith/em,
addresses: em1/em Main St, NYC,
NY, 55em2/em666
Why does it show highlights on the addresses, when I
specifically sent in a
query for category_id? When
Hi, folks. I'm trying to get a very simple example working with Solr
highlighting. I have a default search field (called, unsurprisingly
default-search-field) with text in it and I want query terms to be
highlighted in that field when I do a search.
I'm using an up to date (as of this evening
Is default-search-field stored (as specified in schema.xml)?
Erik
On Aug 3, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Stephen Green wrote:
Hi, folks. I'm trying to get a very simple example working with Solr
highlighting. I have a default search field (called, unsurprisingly
default-search-field
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Erik Hatchere...@ehatchersolutions.com wrote:
Is default-search-field stored (as specified in schema.xml)?
Yep:
field name=default-search-field
type=html indexed=true stored=true
termVectors=true multiValued=true/
While trying to figure this
check the highlighting box in the full interface
query option in the Solr admin panel, I notice that an element like:
lst name=highlighting
lst name=SOLR1000/
/lst
Is added to the end of the results that are returned.
Oh, and thanks for the fast response, Erik :-)
Steve Green
/solr/admin, and they don't appear to be
highlighted either.
Actually, if I check the highlighting box in the full interface
query option in the Solr admin panel, I notice that an element like:
lst name=highlighting
lst name=SOLR1000/
/lst
Is added to the end of the results that are returned
Hey Matt:
I have been facing the same issue. I have a text field that I
highlight along with other fields (may be 10 others fields). But If I enable
highlighting on this text field that contains large number of
characters/words ( 100 000 characters) , highlighting suffers
Just an FYI, Lucene 2.9 has FastVectorHighlighter:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/Lucene-trunk/javadoc/all/org/apache/lucene/search/vectorhighlight/package-summary.html
Features
* fast for large docs
* support N-gram fields
* support phrase-unit highlighting with slops
);
That means a fragment could only be 1 char - again, I'd try the default
(take out the param), and adjust from there.
(wiki says the default is 100).
Let us know how it goes.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Bruno wrote:
Hi guys.
I new at using highlighting, so probably I'm making
how it goes.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Bruno wrote:
Hi guys.
I new at using highlighting, so probably I'm making some stupid mistake,
however I'm not founding anything wrong.
I use highlighting from a query withing a EmbeddedSolrServer, and within
the query I've set
a fragment could only be 1 char - again, I'd try the default
(take out the param), and adjust from there.
(wiki says the default is 100).
Let us know how it goes.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Bruno wrote:
Hi guys.
I new at using highlighting, so probably I'm making some
how it goes.
--
- Mark
http://www.lucidimagination.com
Bruno wrote:
Hi guys.
I new at using highlighting, so probably I'm making some stupid mistake,
however I'm not founding anything wrong.
I use highlighting from a query withing a EmbeddedSolrServer, and within
the query I've set
Note that highlighting is NOT part of the document list returned.
It's in an additional NamedList section of the response (with
name=highlighting)
Erik
On Jun 18, 2009, at 1:22 PM, Bruno wrote:
Hi guys.
I new at using highlighting, so probably I'm making some stupid
mistake
wrote:
Hi guys.
I new at using highlighting, so probably I'm making some stupid
mistake,
however I'm not founding anything wrong.
I use highlighting from a query withing a EmbeddedSolrServer, and
within
the query I've set parameters necessary for enabling highlighting.
Attached,
follows
I've checked the NamedList you told me about, but it contains only one
highlighted doc, when there I have more docs that sould be highlighted.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Erik Hatcher e...@ehatchersolutions.comwrote:
Note that highlighting is NOT part of the document list returned. It's
Just figured out what happened... It's necessary for the schema to have a
uniqueKey set, otherwise, highlighting will have one or less entries, as the
map's key is the doc uniqueKey, so on debuggin I figured out that the
QueryResponse tries to put all highlighted results in a map with null key
And unfortunately, that isn't the best approach for highlighting to
take - a uniqueKey shouldn't be required for highlighting. I've yet
to see a real-world deployment of Solr that did not have a uniqueKey
field, but there's no reason Solr should make that assumption.
Erik
On Jun
Hi,
I'm trying to highlight based on a (multivalued) field (prefix2) that has
(among other things) a EdgeNGramFilterFactory defined.
highlighting doesn't increment the start-position of the highlighted
portion, so in other words the highlighted portion is always the beginning
of the field
Message
From: Britske gbr...@gmail.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 6:15:36 AM
Subject: highlighting on edgeGramTokenized field -- hightlighting incorrect
bc. position not incremented..
Hi,
I'm trying to highlight based on a (multivalued) field (prefix2
-- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Britske gbr...@gmail.com
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 6:15:36 AM
Subject: highlighting on edgeGramTokenized field -- hightlighting
incorrect bc. position not incremented..
Hi
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/copyfield-and-%27store%27-and-highlighting-tp23967232p23967232.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ashokc wrote:
Hi,
I copy 'field1' to 'field2' so that I can apply a different set of analyzers
filters. Content wise, they are identical. 'field2' has to be stored
because it is used for high-lighting. Do I have to declare 'field1' also to
be stored? 'field1' is never returned in the response.
ashokc schrieb:
Do I have to declare 'field1' also to be stored? 'field1' is never
returned in the response.
I find the following Wiki page helpful when dealing with @stored,
@indexed and friends:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldOptionsByUseCase
Michael Ludwig
Hello,
I am having problems with the dismax request handler and highlighting.
The following query works as intended
http://localhost:8983/solr/select?indent=onq=myquerystart=0rows=10fl=id%2Cscoreqt=standardwt=standardhl=truehl.fl=myfield
whereas
http://localhost:8983/solr/select?indent=onq.alt
I had the same problem - I think the answer is that highlighting is
not currently supported with q.alt and dismax.
http://www.nabble.com/bug--No-highlighting-results-with-dismax-and-q.alt%3D*%3A*-td23438048.html#a23438048
-Peter
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Fouad Mardinif.mard...@gmail.com
Hi,
The 'content' field that I am indexing is usually large (e.g. a pdf doc of a
few Mb in size). I need highlighting to be on. This 'seems' to require that
I have to set the 'content' field to be STORED. This returns the whole
content field in the search result XML. for each matching document
in the highlight element, but you won't get
back the unneeded content field.
-Jay
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:41 AM, ashokc ash...@qualcomm.com wrote:
Hi,
The 'content' field that I am indexing is usually large (e.g. a pdf doc of
a
few Mb in size). I need highlighting to be on. This 'seems
otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com wrote:
Matt,
I believe indexing those fields that you will use for highlighting with
term vectors enabled will make things faster (and your index a bit bigger).
Otis --
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Matt
Hi,
I'm experimenting with highlighting and am noticing a big drop in
performance with my setup. I have documents that use quite a few dynamic
fields (20-30). The fields are multiValued stored/indexed text fields, each
with a few paragraphs worth of text. My hl.fl param is set to *_t
What kinds
Matt,
I believe indexing those fields that you will use for highlighting with term
vectors enabled will make things faster (and your index a bit bigger).
Otis --
Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
- Original Message
From: Matt Mitchell goodie...@gmail.com
.
peter.wola...@acquia.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/bug--No-highlighting-results-with-dismax-and-q.alt%3D*%3A*-tp23438048p23450189.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D.
Momentum Specialist, Acquia. Inc
Possibly this issue is related: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-825
Though it seems that might affect the standard handler, while what I'm
seeing is more sepcific to the dismax handler.
-Peter
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Peter Wolanin peter.wola...@acquia.com wrote:
For the
...@acquia.com
--
Peter M. Wolanin, Ph.D.
Momentum Specialist, Acquia. Inc.
peter.wola...@acquia.com
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/bug--No-highlighting-results-with-dismax-and-q.alt%3D*%3A*-tp23438048p23450189.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive
For the Drupal Apache Solr Integration module, we are exploring the
possibility of doing facet browsing - since we are using dismax as
the default handler, this would mean issuing a query with an empty q
and falling back to to q.alt='*:*' or some other q.alt that matches
all docs.
However, I
1001 - 1100 of 1278 matches
Mail list logo
