Since Span is the only way to solve the problem, I won't mind re-indexing.
It's just that I have never done it before.
We've got 80G of indexed data replicated on two nodes in a cluster. Is
there a preferred way to go about re-indexing?
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Changing value of omitTermFreqAndPositions requires re-indexing,
> unfortunately. And I remembered that you don't want to reindex. It looks
> like we are out of options.
>
> Ahmet
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 12:45 AM, Vijay Kokatnur <
> kokatnur.vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
