Yes I did restart solr, but did not re-index. Is that necessary? We've
got 80G of indexed data, is there a "preferred" way of doing it without
impacting performance?
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Did restart solr and you re-index after schema change?
> On Saturday, April 5, 2014 2:39 AM, Vijay Kokatnur <
> kokatnur.vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had already tested with omitTermFreqAndPositions="false" . I still
> got the same error.
>
> Is there something that I am overlooking?
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vijay,
>
> Add omitTermFreqAndPositions="false" attribute to fieldType definitions.
>
> <fieldType name="string" class="solr.StrField"
> omitTermFreqAndPositions="false" sortMissingLast="true" />
>
> <fieldType name="int" class="solr.TrieIntField"
> omitTermFreqAndPositions="false" precisionStep="0"
> positionIncrementGap="0"/>
>
> You don't need termVectors for this.
>
> 1.2: omitTermFreqAndPositions attribute introduced, true by default
> except for text fields.
>
> And please reply to solr user mail, so others can use the threat later on.
>
> Ahmet
> On Saturday, April 5, 2014 12:18 AM, Vijay Kokatnur <
> kokatnur.vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Ahmet,
>
> Sorry it took some time to test this. But schema definition seem to
> conflict with SpanQuery. I get following error when I use Spans
>
> field "OrderLineType" was indexed without position data; cannot run
> SpanTermQuery (term=11)
>
> I changed field definition in the schema but can't find the right
> attribute to set this. My last attempt was with following definition
>
> <field name="OrderLineType" type="string" indexed="true" stored="true"
> multiValued="true" *termVectors="true" termPositions="true"
> termOffsets="true"*/>
>
> Any ideas what I am doing wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> -Vijay
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Vijay,
>
> After reading the documentation it seems that following query is what you
> are after. It will return OrderId:345 without matching OrderId:123
>
> SpanQuery q1 = new SpanTermQuery(new Term("BookingRecordId", "234"));
> SpanQuery q2 = new SpanTermQuery(new Term("OrderLineType", "11"));
> SpanQuery q2m new FieldMaskingSpanQuery(q2, "BookingRecordId");
> Query q = new SpanNearQuery(new SpanQuery[]{q1, q2m}, -1, false);
>
> Ahmet
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:39 PM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> Hi Vijay,
>
> I personally don't understand joins very well. Just a guess may
> be FieldMaskingSpanQuery could be used?
>
>
> http://blog.griddynamics.com/2011/07/solr-experience-search-parent-child.html
>
>
> Ahmet
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:46 PM, Vijay Kokatnur <
> kokatnur.vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am bumping this thread again one last time to see if anyone has a
> solution.
>
> In it's current state, our application is storing child items as multivalue
> fields. Consider some orders, for example -
>
>
> {
> OrderId:123
> BookingRecordId : ["145", "987", "*234*"]
> OrderLineType : ["11", "12", "*13*"]
> .....
> }
> {
> OrderId:345
> BookingRecordId : ["945", "882", "*234*"]
> OrderLineType : ["1", "12", "*11*"]
> .....
> }
> {
> OrderId:678
> BookingRecordId : ["444"]
> OrderLineType : ["11"]
> .....
> }
>
>
> Here, If you look up for an Order with BookingRecordId: 234 And
> OrderLineType:11. You will get two orders with orderId : 123 and 345,
> which is correct. You have two arrays in both the orders that satisfy this
> condition.
>
> However, for OrderId:123, the value at 3rd index of OrderLineType array is
> 13 and not 11( this is for OrderId:345). So orderId 123 should be
> excluded. This is what I am trying to achieve.
>
> I got some suggestions from a solr-user to use FieldsCollapsing, Join,
> Block-join or string concatenation. None of these approaches can be used
> without re-indexing schema.
>
> Has anyone found a non-invasive solution for this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Vijay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
