case.
Testing environment: Solr 7.0.1, 1 core with 70GB data (~1.000.000 documents),
no shards
Akos
-Original Message-
From: Mikhail Khludnev [mailto:m...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 8:38 AM
To: solr-user
Subject: Re: Result grouping performance
Akos,
Can you provide
>
> I am migrating our codebase from Solr 4.7 to 7.0.1 but the performance of
> result grouping seems very poor using the newer Solr.
> For example a simple MatchAllDocsQuery takes 5 sec on Solr4.7, and 21 sec
> on Solr7.
> I wonder what causes the x4 difference in time? We hoped that
Have you enabled docValues (and reindexed from scratch) on the field
you're grouping on?
Best,
Erick
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Kempelen, Ákos
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am migrating our codebase from Solr 4.7 to 7.0.1 but the performance of
> result grouping seems very poo
Hello,
I am migrating our codebase from Solr 4.7 to 7.0.1 but the performance of
result grouping seems very poor using the newer Solr.
For example a simple MatchAllDocsQuery takes 5 sec on Solr4.7, and 21 sec on
Solr7.
I wonder what causes the x4 difference in time? We hoped that newer Solr
I’ll also mention the choice to improve processing speed by allocating more
memory, which increases the importance of GC tuning. This bit me when I tried
using it on a larger index.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-9125
I don’t know if the result grouping feature shares the same
omething to fix this particular situation in
>> the future.
>>
>> Solr currently has two ways to get grouped results (so far!). You can
>> either use Result Grouping or you can use the Collapsing Query Parser.
>> Result grouping seems like the obvious way to go. It
> the future.
>
> Solr currently has two ways to get grouped results (so far!). You can
> either use Result Grouping or you can use the Collapsing Query Parser.
> Result grouping seems like the obvious way to go. It's well documented, the
> parameters are clear, it doesn't
perhaps see if we can do something to fix this particular situation in
> the future.
>
> Solr currently has two ways to get grouped results (so far!). You can
> either use Result Grouping or you can use the Collapsing Query Parser.
> Result grouping seems like the obvious way to
Hi all,
I've had a rotten day today because of Solr. I want to share my experience
and perhaps see if we can do something to fix this particular situation in
the future.
Solr currently has two ways to get grouped results (so far!). You can
either use Result Grouping or you can use the Colla
aju
> wrote:
> > Any suggestions on how to handle result grouping in sharded index?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Jay Potharaju
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> I am working on a functionality that would require me to group docum
Do you have to group, or can you collapse instead?
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Collapse+and+Expand+Results
Cheers
Tom
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Jay Potharaju wrote:
> Any suggestions on how to handle result grouping in sharded index?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1
Any suggestions on how to handle result grouping in sharded index?
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Jay Potharaju
wrote:
> Hi,
> I am working on a functionality that would require me to group documents
> by a id field. I read that the ngroups feature would not work in a sharded
>
Hi,
I am working on a functionality that would require me to group documents by
a id field. I read that the ngroups feature would not work in a sharded
index.
Can someone recommend how to handle this in a sharded index?
Solr Version: 5.5
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Result
For me, I'm using the signature field grouping method, as shown from this
website: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/De-Duplication
You can set the signatureField to be "title", then during the query,
instead of using &group=true&group.field=title, you can use
&group=true&group.fiel
I second Toke’s recommendation to ensure you have a pure string-version of your
title.
For pure de-duplication you could also consider the lighter-weight
CollapseComponent
Instead of &group=true&group.field=title, use &fq={!collapse field=title_string}
See
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/d
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 14:53 +0530, vishal raut wrote:
> I have indexed various videos in solr which I have in my database. I want
> to search for those video titles, but there can be duplicate video titles
> as well (If the video is same but source is different, this will have
> separate entry in s
tps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/%7Evishalraut20>
I am using Result Grouping in my search. If I am searching normally Solr
gives proper results, but when I am using
"group=true" and other grouping options solr returns following error :
Too many values for UnInvertedField f
Hi Christian,
It seems to me that you can use range faceting to get counts.
Thanks,
Emir
--
Monitoring * Alerting * Anomaly Detection * Centralized Log Management
Solr & Elasticsearch Support * http://sematext.com/
On 20.10.2015 17:05, Christian Reuschling wrote:
Hi,
we try to get the number
Hi,
we try to get the number of documents for given time slots in the index
efficiently.
For this, we query the solr index like this:
http://localhost:8014/solr/myCore/query?q=*:*&rows=1&fl=id&group=true&group.query=modified:[201103010%20TO%20201302010]&group.query=modified:[20
The error message looks a lot like this bug
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7495
group.faceting is broken for numeric values. Does it mean that I have to enable
docvalues for every field that I want to facet on?
On 24 Sep 2015, at 17:02, Tomoko Uchida
mailto:tomoko.uchida.1...@gma
Hi,
> Of course the Doc Values data structure can be used by anything who wants
> to retrieve the column base view of documents per field, but is anywhere
> documented all the ways it's used in Solr ?
According to the Solr guide about docvalues, it is used in faceting,
sorting, and grouping.
http
I didn't know DocValues to be used apart from sorting and faceting (fc
algorithm) on fields.
Of course the Doc Values data structure can be used by anything who wants
to retrieve the column base view of documents per field, but is anywhere
documented all the ways it's used in Solr ?
Cheers
2015-0
On 9/18/2015 3:27 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> A query that works fine in Solr 4.9.1 doesn't work in 5.2.1 with the
> same schema. The field that I am grouping on does not have docValues.
> I get this exception:
>
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: unexpected docvalues type SORTED_SET
> for field '
Hi,
I've been trying to improve the speed of my Result Grouping, and I've found
that by setting the parameter group.cache.percent to 100 actually does
improve the speed, especially for the longer query string.
But I would like to find out is whether is there any cost in doing so? Lik
A query that works fine in Solr 4.9.1 doesn't work in 5.2.1 with the
same schema. The field that I am grouping on does not have docValues.
I get this exception:
java.lang.IllegalStateException: unexpected docvalues type SORTED_SET
for field 'ip' (expected=SORTED). Use UninvertingReader or index
When using result grouping, Solr specs state the following about the "rows"
and "group.limit" params:
rows - The number of groups to return.
group.limit - Number of rows to return in each group.
We are using Solr cloud with a single collection and 64 shards.
When grouping
Simply put, trying to cut corners and intuit what would be OK when
changing the schema by NOT reindexing from scratch when you are
_not_ completely familiar with the low-level details of Lucene is an recipe
for problems. As you are finding out and Shawn explained.
Think of it this way. The schema.
On 7/24/2015 3:48 PM, shamik wrote:
> Here's the part which I'm not able to understand. I've for e.g. Source A, B,
> C and D in index. Each source contains "n" number of documents. Now, out of
> these, a bunch of documents in A and B are tagged with MediaType. I took the
> following steps:
>
> 1.
aType ?
I'll follow your recommendation of creating a new collection, do a full
index and delete original collection.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Unexpected-docvalues-type-error-using-result-grouping-Use-UninvertingReader-or-index-with-docvalues-tp4218
this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Unexpected-docvalues-type-error-using-result-grouping-Use-UninvertingReader-or-index-with-docvalues-tp4218939p4219089.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ng from
scratch ?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Unexpected-docvalues-type-error-using-result-grouping-Use-UninvertingReader-or-index-with-docvalues-tp4218939p4219089.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
You could try stopping SOLR, going into the data directory and rm -rf * and
starting SOLR again.
Did you use the schema REST api? Residual ?
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Shamik Bandopadhyay
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm facing this weird error while running result grouping queries.
Hi,
I'm facing this weird error while running result grouping queries. This
started when I turned on "docvalues" for an existing facet field and
indexed the documents. Looking at the exception, I reverted back the change
and re-indexed the documents again. But I'm still g
Is it possible to SUM in a Group query?I am using the Solr group function and
it's retrieving the results.Now, I want to SUM the numeric field.Is it possible.
My query is like
this-http://localhost:8983/solr/glaas/select?%20q=abc%20&fl=TotalInvoices%20&wt=json%20&indent=true%20&debugQuery=true%2
On 3/12/2015 3:36 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch wrote:
Manual optimize is no longer needed for modern Solr. It does great
optimization automatically. The only reason I recommended it here is
to make sure that all segments are brought up to the latest version
and the deleted documents are purged. That
Manual optimize is no longer needed for modern Solr. It does great
optimization automatically. The only reason I recommended it here is
to make sure that all segments are brought up to the latest version
and the deleted documents are purged. That's something that also would
happen automatically eve
Wow, "optimize" worked like a charm. This really addressed the docvalues
issue. A follow-up question, is it recommended to run optimize in a
Production Solr index ? Also, in a Sorl cloud mode, do we need to run
optimize on each instance / each shard / any instance ?
Appreciate your help Alex.
-
Do you have any really old segments in that index? Could be worth
trying to optimize them down to one in latest format first.
Like Shawn, this is just a "one more idea" proposal.
Regards,
Alex.
Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters, URPs and even a newsletter:
http://www.solr-start.com/
O
On 3/11/2015 4:45 PM, shamik wrote:
> multiValued="false" required="false" omitNorms="true" docValues="true"
> /> 3/11/2015, 2:14:30 PM ERROR SolrDispatchFilter
> null:java.lang.IllegalStateException: unexpected docvalues type NONE
> for field 'DocumentType' (expected=SORTED). Use UninvertingReade
Well, I think I've narrowed down the issue. The error is happening when I'm
trying to do a rolling update from Solr 4.7 (which is our current version)
to 5.0 . I'm able to re-produce this couple of times. If I do a fresh index
on a 5.0, it works. Not sure if there's any other way to mitigate it.
Hi,
I've a field which is being used for result grouping. Here's the field
definition.
This started once I did a rolling update from 4.7 to 5.0. I started getting
the error on any group by query --> "SolrDispatchFilter null:java.lang.
IllegalStateException: unexpected d
n context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-5-0-IllegalStateException-unexpected-docvalues-type-NONE-on-result-grouping-tp4192477p4192537.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ge
3)providing a w/o the makes it hard to guess
exactly what settings you are using (ie: is "docValuesFormat" specified on
the fieldType?)
4) You said you are using result grouping, but you haven't actually shown
us an example of what your request (with all params) looks like ..
ucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Solr-5-0-IllegalStateException-unexpected-docvalues-type-NONE-on-result-grouping-tp4192477p4192529.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi all:
Has anyone made solr Morelikethis working with results grouping?
Thanks in advance.
M
r of vehicles per maker in the city and in the
given price range (faceting).
I tried something like this (using solr grouping
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Result+Grouping):
I group the records with the same "vehicle_full_name" field ('group.field':
'v
r of vehicles per maker in the city and in the
given price range (faceting).
I tried something like this (using solr grouping
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/solr/Result+Grouping):
I group the records with the same "vehicle_full_name" field ('group.field':
'v
Message-
From: Sudhakar Maddineni [mailto:maddineni...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:10 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Result grouping using externalfilefield
Hi,
Just trying to understand grouping feature with solrcloud 4.2 and I have 4
node/2 shard cluster setup.I
Hi,
Just trying to understand grouping feature with solrcloud 4.2 and I have 4
node/2 shard cluster setup.I am trying to group my search results based on
an externalfilefield that I defined.
Here is my configuration:
core1:
==
schema.xml:
solrconfig.xml:
And, created empty file
Hi Ahmet,
Thanks for the information! But as per Solr documentation, group.truncate
is not supported in distributed searches and I am looking for a solution
that can work on SolrCloud.
--
Varun Gupta
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Ahmet Arslan wrote:
> Hi Varun,
>
> I think you can use group.
Hi Varun,
I think you can use group.truncate=true with stats component
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/StatsComponent
If true, facet counts are based on the most relevant document of each group
matching the query. Same applies for StatsComponent. Default is false.
Solr3.4 Supported from Solr
Hi,
I am using SolrCloud for getting results grouped by a particular field.
Now, I also want to get min and max value for a particular field for each
group. For example, if I am grouping results by city, then I also want to
get the minimum and maximum price for each city.
Is this possible to do w
I'm still having the same problem which is can not get ngroups when set
group.main=true.
Is this problem fix?
I'm usgin Solr 4.6.0
than you very much,
Chun.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/numFound-is-not-correct-while-using-Resul
Thanks Joel, really appreciate your help. I'll keep an eye on the 4.6.1
release.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SolrCloud-Result-Grouping-vs-CollapsingQParserPlugin-tp4111331p4111486.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ss
multiple shards be specifying the number of bits to use from the shard key."
If we split shards, will Result Grouping / CollapsingQParserPlugin and
number of results still work ?"
With field collapsing you'll need to keep all group docs on the same shard,
so you won't be abl
ntent. I'm trying to remove them by applying result
grouping / CollapsingQParserPlugin. For e.g. lets say I've source ABC, MNO
and XYZ. Now, ABC and MNO source contains the duplicate documents, which is
identified by a field say adskdedup. I've couple of shards, the id being the
url
.
>
>
>
>
> Joel Bernstein
> Search Engineer at Heliosearch
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Shamik Bandopadhyay wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm planning to upgrade to Solr 4.6 to move from using Result Grouping
>> to
>> CollapsingQParserPl
up on the same shard.
Joel Bernstein
Search Engineer at Heliosearch
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Shamik Bandopadhyay wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning to upgrade to Solr 4.6 to move from using Result Grouping to
> CollapsingQParserPlugin. I'm currently using SolrClo
Hi,
I'm planning to upgrade to Solr 4.6 to move from using Result Grouping to
CollapsingQParserPlugin. I'm currently using SolrCloud, couple of issues
with Result Grouping are :
1. Slow performance
2. Incorrect result count from ngroup
My understanding is that CollapsingQParserPlugi
the search results, we would like all these results sorted by their
> score.
>
> So If I use solr result grouping to get the top two result from each group,
> then I need to un-group them.
>
> So my question is there any pure solr solution to handle this? I prefer it
> handle by s
Thanks Erick for your response.
My goal is
1. try to search from solr. In the search result, we would like show no more
than two results from the same source id.
2. For the search results, we would like all these results sorted by their
score.
So If I use solr result grouping to get the top two
ed="true"/>
> indexed="true"/>
> indexed="true"/>
>
> I know I can use solr Result Grouping / Field Collapsing to get the top 2
> result by grouping by source_id. Within each groups, documents sorted by
> scroe by query like this:
> http://localho
Hi, I have solr documents like this:
I know I can use solr Result Grouping / Field Collapsing to get the top 2
result by grouping by source_id. Within each groups, documents sorted by
scroe by query like this:
http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=bank&group.field=source_id&gr
Not that I know of. Grouping pretty much treats all groups the same...
Best
Erick
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Gunnar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to page results with grouping /field collapsing. My query is:
>
> ?q=myKeywords&start=0&rows=100&group=true&group.field=myGroupField&group.form
Hello,
I'm trying to page results with grouping /field collapsing. My query is:
?q=myKeywords&start=0&rows=100&group=true&group.field=myGroupField&group.format=simple&group.limit=1
The result will contain 70 groups, is there a way to get 100 records
returned, means 70 from each group first doc
ut stating the problem. Perhaps
> > there's a better approach that _is_ do-able.
> >
> > Best
> > Erick
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Tony Mullins > >wrote:
> >
> > > Any suggestions please !
> > >
> > >
t; On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Tony Mullins >wrote:
>
> > Any suggestions please !
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Tony Mullins > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Is it possible to perform aggregated termfreq(fie
y Mullins wrote:
> Any suggestions please !
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Tony Mullins >wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is it possible to perform aggregated termfreq(field,term) on Result
> > Grouping ?
> >
> > I am trying to get total count of
Any suggestions please !
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Tony Mullins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to perform aggregated termfreq(field,term) on Result
> Grouping ?
>
> I am trying to get total count of term's appearance in a document and then
> want to aggregate
Hi,
Is it possible to perform aggregated termfreq(field,term) on Result
Grouping ?
I am trying to get total count of term's appearance in a document and then
want to aggregate that count by grouping the document on one of my field.
Like this
http://localhost:8080/solr/collection1/sel
ote:
> I was reading this documentation on Result Grouping...
> http://docs.lucidworks.com/display/solr/Result+Grouping
>
> which says...
>
> sort - sortspec - Specifies how Solr sorts the groups relative to each
> other. For example, sort=popularity desc will cause the groups to be
&g
What type of field are you grouping on? What happens when you distribute
it? I.e. what specifically goes wrong?
Upayavira
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, at 09:12 PM, Bryan Bende wrote:
> I was reading this documentation on Result Grouping...
> http://docs.lucidworks.com/display/solr/Result+Gr
I was reading this documentation on Result Grouping...
http://docs.lucidworks.com/display/solr/Result+Grouping
which says...
sort - sortspec - Specifies how Solr sorts the groups relative to each
other. For example, sort=popularity desc will cause the groups to be sorted
according to the highest
Hello list
In one of our search that we use Result Grouping we have a need to
filter results to only groups that have more then one document in the
group, or more specifically to groups that have two documents.
Is it possible in some way?
Thank you
Hello,
I am using the Result Grouping feature with SolrCloud, and it seems that
grouping does not work with field types having precisionStep property
greater than 0, in distributed mode.
I updated the "SolrCloud - Getting Started" page example A (Simple two
shard cluster).
In my schem
I need to write some tests which I hope to do tonight and then I think
it'll get into 4.2
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Nicholas Ding wrote:
> Thanks Amit, that's cool! So it will also be fixed on Solr 4.2, right?
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Amit Nithian wrote:
>
> > Yeah I had a si
Thanks Amit, that's cool! So it will also be fixed on Solr 4.2, right?
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Amit Nithian wrote:
> Yeah I had a similar problem. I filed and submitted this patch:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4310
>
> Let me know if this is what you are looking for!
> A
Yeah I had a similar problem. I filed and submitted this patch:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-4310
Let me know if this is what you are looking for!
Amit
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Teun Duynstee wrote:
> Ah, I see. The docs say "Although this result format does not have as mu
Ah, I see. The docs say "Although this result format does not have as much
information, it may be easier for existing solr clients to parse". I guess
the ngroups value could be added to this format, but apparently it isn't. I
do agree with you that to be usefull (as in possible to read for a client
Thanks Teun and Carlos, I set group.ngroups=true, but I don't have this
"ngroup" number when I was using group.main = true.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Carlos Maroto <
cmar...@searchtechnologies.com> wrote:
> Use group.ngroups, check it in the Solr wiki for FieldCollapsing
>
> Carlos Maroto
Use group.ngroups, check it in the Solr wiki for FieldCollapsing
Carlos Maroto
Search Architect at Search Technologies (www.searchtechnologies.com)
Nicholas Ding wrote:
Hello,
I grouped the result, and set group.main=true. I was expecting the numFound
equals to the number of groups, but act
You have to set group.ngroups=true (see
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FieldCollapsing). Be aware that including the
number of groups is a surprisingly heavy operation, though.
Teun
2013/2/25 Nicholas Ding
> Hello,
>
> I grouped the result, and set group.main=true. I was expecting the numFound
>
/Scalability-of-Solr-Result-Grouping-Field-Collapsing-Millions-Billions-of-documents-tp4002524p4017945.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
, mechravi25 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently using solr 3.6.1 version and for indexing data, i am using
> the data import handler for 3.5 because of the reason posted in the
> following forum link
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Dataimport-Handler-in-solr-3-6-1-td4001149.html
Hi,
I am currently using solr 3.6.1 version and for indexing data, i am using
the data import handler for 3.5 because of the reason posted in the
following forum link
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Dataimport-Handler-in-solr-3-6-1-td4001149.html
I am trying to achieve result grouping based
Tom,
Feel free to find my benchmark results for two alternative joining
approaches.
http://blog.griddynamics.com/2012/08/block-join-query-performs.html
Regards
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> Tom:
>
> I thin my comments were that grouping on a field where there was
> a u
Tom:
I thin my comments were that grouping on a field where there was
a unique value _per document_ chewed up a lot of resources.
Conceptually, there's a bucket for each unique group value. And
grouping on a file path is just asking for trouble.
But the memory used for grouping should max as a fu
Yes, distributed grouping works, but grouping takes a lot of
resources. If you can avoid in distributed mode, so much the better.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Tom Burton-West wrote:
> Thanks Tirthankar,
>
> So the issue in memory use for sorting. I'm not sure I understand how
> sorting of gr
Thanks Tirthankar,
So the issue in memory use for sorting. I'm not sure I understand how
sorting of grouping fields is involved with the defaults and field
collapsing, since the default sorts by relevance not grouping field. On
the other hand I don't know much about how field collapsing is impl
Hi Lance and Tirthankar,
We are currently using Solr 3.6. I tried a search across our current 12
shards grouping by book id (record_no in our schema) and it seems to work
fine (the query with the actual urls for the shards changed is appended
below.)
I then searched for the record_no of the seco
Hi Tirthankar,
Can you give me a quick summary of what won't work and why?
I couldn't figure it out from looking at your thread. You seem to have a
different issue, but maybe I'm missing something here.
Tom
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Tirthankar Chatterjee <
tchatter...@commvault.com> wr
nt work, see my thread on Solr3.6 Field collapsing
> > Thanks,
> > Tirthankar
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Burton-West
> > Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:39:25
> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> > Reply-To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.o
olr-user@lucene.apache.org"
> Cc: William Dueber; Phillip Farber
> Subject: Scalability of Solr Result Grouping/Field Collapsing:
> Millions/Billions of documents?
>
> Hello all,
>
> We are thinking about using Solr Field Collapsing on a rather large scale
> and wonder if
Solr3.6 Field collapsing
> Thanks,
> Tirthankar
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Burton-West
> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:39:25
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Reply-To: "solr-user@lucene.apache.org"
> Cc: William Dueber; Phillip Farber
> Subject:
ty of Solr Result Grouping/Field Collapsing:
Millions/Billions of documents?
Hello all,
We are thinking about using Solr Field Collapsing on a rather large scale
and wonder if anyone has experience with performance when doing Field
Collapsing on millions of or billions of documents (details bel
Hello all,
We are thinking about using Solr Field Collapsing on a rather large scale
and wonder if anyone has experience with performance when doing Field
Collapsing on millions of or billions of documents (details below. ) Are
there performance issues with grouping large result sets?
Details:
W
Please attach the results of adding &debugQuery=on
to your query in both the success and failure case, there's
very little information to go on here. You might review:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UsingMailingLists
Best
Erick
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:57 AM, chethan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying
Hi,
I'm trying to group (field collapse) my search results on a field called
"site". The schema says that it has to be indexed: *.*
But when I try to query the results with *group.field=site&group.limit=100,
*I see only 1 group of results being returned. And the group value is null.
This seems to
with sorting/ pagination by using Result Grouping?
5) Why is there a limit to the no of results in a group? Do i have to know
the max number my system can have and use that to get all results in a
group? group.limit seems to be odd in that respect. Either it should be
that, if you dont set
: Nope, they're the same. The original name was Field Collapsing,
: but it was changed to "Grouping" later.
Specificly: "Field Collapsing" is one type of usecase for the more general
concept of "Result Grouping" (other types of result grouping are "gr
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
