I have an index file where I am missing si files for a set of dim,fdt,and
nvd files, is there a way i can create the si file, the shard is thus not
getting allocated because of this and I am facing no index found exception.
have experience with this
situation. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
--
Signature
*Brian Wright*
*Sr. Systems Engineer *
901 Mariners Island Blvd Suite 200
San Mateo, CA 94404 USA
*Email *bri...@marketo.com <mailto:bri...@marketo.com>
*Phone *+1.650.539.3530**
*www.marketo.c
received this
e-mail in error….”
Search:
((privilege) not w/4 (“received this e-mail in error”))
Thanks in advance!
Brian V. Zayas
Litigation Support Project Manager
JONES DAY® - One Firm Worldwide℠
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Office +1.650.739.3973 (Silicon Valley)
Office +1.41
combined with not protecting against this
possibility.
Thanks for your assistance guys!
-Brian
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Brian Call wrote:
>
> No exception at all… and that’s the crazy part. I create a new IndexWriter
> and then immediately create a new SearcherManager using
either.
-Brian
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Ian Lea wrote:
>
> Presumably no exception is thrown from the new IndexWriter() call?
> I'd double check that, and try some harmless method call on the
> writer and make sure that works. And run CheckIndex against the
>
received.
Blessings,
Brian
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 2:16 AM, Tomoko Uchida
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> How often does this error occur?
> You do not tell the lucene version, but I guess you use lucene 3.x
> according to the stack trace...
> IndexWriter would not be closed until
closed?
I’m completely baffled on this one guys… so many thanks in advance for your
help! I’ll take any suggestions on a possible mitigation too if anyone thinks
of any.
Blessings,
Brian Call
Manager, Systems Software Development
Work: +1 (619) 373-4840 | Cell: +1 (619) 344-1013
<h
I’ll try bumping up the per-process file max and see if that fixes it. Thanks
for all your help and suggestions guys!
-Brian
On Nov 7, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Toke Eskildsen wrote:
> Brian Call [brian.c...@soterawireless.com] wrote:
>> Yep, you guys are correct, I’m supporting a sligh
ata.
Also, we’re not using Solr, only raw lucene. The indices remain open until the
streaming data has stopped and a user has removed the related session from the
UI.
Yes, it’s a necessary kind of scary…
-Brian
On Nov 7, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
> bq: Our server run
Yep, you guys are correct, I’m supporting a slightly older version of our
product based on Lucene 3. In my previous email I forgot to mention that I also
bumped up the maximum allowable file handles per process to 16k, which had been
working well. Here’s the ulimit -a output from our server:
co
-process map count using cat /proc//maps | wc -l and that returned
around 4k maps, well under the 65k limit.
Does anyone have any ideas on what to check out next? I’m running out of things
to try…
Many, many thanks in advance!
Blessings,
Brian Call
; : Doc3
And maybe even:
"another longer free text" : Doc1, Doc2, Doc3
Any help is appreciated. Here are the components I am currently using:
Lucene.Net.Analysis.Standard.StandardAnalyzer
Lucene.Net.Search.Query query = new Lucene.Net.Search.FuzzyQuery
Lucene.Net.Search.TopDocs hits = sea
s? I am calling the doc function on the index search with a null
FieldSelector, but this does not seem to reduce the cost of getting fields
(indeed, it seems to slow down the whole query processing by a significant
factor). Is there any help anyone can give me?
Thanks.
Brian
other
indexes that are working just fine. Though I've run a check and repair and
it seems to be clean.
Any advice would be appreciated!
Regards,
Brian Coverstone
I have been looking at using ParallelReader as its documentation indicates, to
allow certain fields to be updated while most of the fields will not be updated.
However, this does not seem possible. Let's say I have two indexes, A and B,
which are used in a ParallelReader. If I update a documen
ome old flame war.
> > Or just tell me what
> > to google for (the terms I've tried haven't yielded
> > anything useful).
>
>
> org.apache.lucene.queryParser.QueryParser.setDefaultOperator()
>
>
>
Even better. I had missed that. Thank you very much!
Brian
or (the terms I've tried haven't yielded anything useful).
Thanks.
Brian
Hi, I'm using Lucene for a search project and I have the following
requirements and I was wondering if one of you fine folks could point me
in the right direction (currently i'm using the RAMDirectory,
IndexSearcher, StandardAnalyzer and QueryParser):
Given the example search string:
"red leather
Hi all, brief message to let you know that we're in heavy hire mode at the
Echo Nest. As many of you know we are very heavy solr/lucene users (~1bn
documents across many many servers) and a lot of our staff have been working
with and contributing to the projects over the years. We are a "music
inte
tire segment files are rewritten every time. So it looks like our only
option
is to bail out when there's not enough space to duplicate the existing
index.
- Original Message ----
From: "Beard, Brian"
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 8:19:52 AM
Sub
We had a situation where our index size was inflated to roughly double.
It took about a couple of months, but the size eventually dropped back
down, so it does seem to eventually get rid of the deleted documents.
With that said, in the future expungeDeletes will get called once a day
to better man
e this metaData information while inside the TokenFilter. I guess
this would be similar to adding column stride fields, but have multiple
ones at different positions in the document.
-Original Message-
From: Beard, Brian [mailto:brian.be...@mybir.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:02 P
pass through
and flag them using a typeAttribute, while they don't in search mode.
For this though I would most likely have to end up using different
delimiter values.
Any help is appreciated,
Brian Beard
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
I have a situation where I'm using a Boost on documents to bump them up in the
search results when a search has multiple documents with the same hits in the
search query. However, it looks like if two or more documents have the same
rank after the Boost is applied, the search results are ordered
this. Or try a
> later version of lucene.
>
>
> --
> Ian.
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Brian Pontarelli
> wrote:
>> I'm new to the list and I'm having an issue that I wanted to ask about
>> quick. I'm using Lucene version
I'm new to the list and I'm having an issue that I wanted to ask about quick.
I'm using Lucene version 2.4.1
I recently rewrote a query to use the Query classes rather than a String and
QueryParser. The search results between the two queries are now in different
orders while the number of resul
Since FieldSortedHitQueue was deprecated in 3.0, I'm converting to the
new FieldValueHitQueue.
The trouble I'm having is coming up with a way to use FieldValueHitQueue
in a Collector so it is decoupled from a TopDocsCollector.
What I'd like to do is have a custom Collector that can add objects
ex
Thanks. And now I know where to go if there are more issues :)
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
> thanks for reporting this, i opened a jira issue at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-2132
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:58 PM, brian li wrote:
>
>
web demo code, so I just post
it here. Just think newbie like me can enjoy one less bump trying
this.
Regards,
Brian
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h
Quite possibly, but shouldn't one expect Lucene's resource to track
the size of the problem in question? Paul's two examples below use
input files of 5 and 62MB, hardly the size of input I'd expect to
handle in a memory-compromised environment.
bri
On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:43 AM, Glen New
with Sun's JDK 6 update 12, 64-bit, on Debian
Lenny.
Thanks,
Brian
The information contained in this email message and its attachments
is intended
only for the private and confidential use of the recipient(s) named
above, unless the sender expressly agrees otherwise. Transmission
of email
Thought I would report a performance increase noticed in migrating from
2.3.2 to 2.4.0.
Performing an iterated loop using termDocs & termEnums like below is
about 30% faster.
The example test set I'm running has about 70K documents to go through
and process (on a dual processor windows machine) w
A while ago someone posted a link to a project called XTF which does
this:
http://xtf.wiki.sourceforge.net/
The one problem with this approach still lurking for me (or maybe I
don't understand how to get around) is how to handle multiple terms
which "must" appear in the query, but are in non-overl
>
>
> It's very strange that CheckIndex -fix did not resolve the issue. After
> fixing it, if you re-run CheckIndex on the index do you still see that
> original one broken segment present? CheckIndex should have removed
> reference to that one segment.
>
I just ran it again, and it detected the
s the same error.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Michael McCandless <
luc...@mikemccandless.com> wrote:
> Also, this (Solr server going down during an add) should not be able to
> cause this kind of corruption.
> Mike
>
> Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 2, 2009
e [-fix was not specified]
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Brian Whitman wrote:
> I will but I bet I can guess what happened -- this index has many
> duplicates in it as well (same uniqueKey id multiple times) - this happened
> to us once before and it was because the solr server went down
there any other
> exceptions prior to this one, or, any previous problems with the OS/IO
> system?
>
> Can you run CheckIndex (java org.apache.lucene.index.CheckIndex to see
> usage) and post the output?
> Mike
>
> Brian Whitman wrote:
>
> > I am getting this on a 10
I am getting this on a 10GB index (via solr 1.3) during an optimize:
Jan 2, 2009 6:51:52 PM org.apache.solr.common.SolrException log
SEVERE: java.io.IOException: background merge hit exception: _ks4:C2504982
_oaw:C514635 _tll:C827949 _tdx:C18372 _te8:C19929 _tej:C22201 _1agw:C1717926
_1agz:C1 into
Karsten,
Thanks, I will look into this.
>Hi Brian,
>
>I don't know the internals of highlighting („explanation“) in lucene.
>But I know that XTF (
>http://xtf.wiki.sourceforge.net/underHood_Documents#tocunderHood_Documents5
>) can handle very large documents (above 100 M
some more processing there, but disabling it
doesn't seem to affect the performance that much.
One other thing was just doing a simple regex search without using a
scorer or analyzer. This runs about 2x faster, but still is relatively
slow.
Has anyone had any good experience with performing fra
I played around with GC quite a bit in our app and found the following
java settings to help a lot (Used with jboss, but should be good for any
jvm).
set JAVA_OPTS=%JAVA_OPTS% -XX:MaxPermSize=512M -XX:+UseConcMarkSweepGC
-XX:+CMSPermGenSweepingEnabled -XX:+CMSClassUnloadingEnabled
While these set
35 AM, Beard, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I will try tweaking RAM, and check about autoCommit=false. It's on the
> future agenda to multi-thread through the index writer. The indexing
> time I quoted includes the document creation time which would
definitely
> improve w
performance feedback
This is great to hear!
If you tweak things a bit (increase RAM buffer size, use
autoCommit=false, use threads, etc) you should be able to eke out some
more gains...
Are you storing fields & using term vectors on any of your fields?
Mike
Beard, Brian wrote:
>
> I
e a bit. Total
index size (eventually) will be ~15G.
Thanks,
Brian Beard
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
y) will be ~15G.
Thanks,
Brian Beard
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm using lucene 2.2.0 & have two questions:
1) Should search times be linear wrt number of queries hitting a single
searcher? I've run multiple search threads against a single searcher,
and the search times are very linear - 10x slower for 10 threads vs 1
thread, etc. I'm using a paralle multi-
You can use your approach w/ or w/o the filter.
>td = indexSearcher.search(query, filter, maxnumhits);
You need to use a filter for the wildcards which is built in to the
query.
1) Extend QueryParser to override the getWildcardQuery method.
(Or even if you don't use QueryParser, j
AHA! That is consistent with what is happening now, and explains the
discrepancy.
The original post of parens around each term was because I was adding
them as separate boolean queries, but now with using just the clause the
parens is around the entire clause with the boost.
-Original Message
ng - from an earlier suggestion - is it possible to
add multiple terms per BooleanClause? I tried using TermQuery.combine()
to add in an array of them into one query and making a clause from that,
but there was no difference in
I'm using lucene 2.2.0.
I'm in the process of re-writing some queries to build BooleanQueries
instead of using query parser.
Bypassing query parser provides almost an order of magnitude improvement
for very large queries, but then the search performance takes 20-30%
longer. I'm adding boost valu
wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> I ran into something similar a long time ago. My custom sort objects were
> being cached by Lucene, but there were too many of them because each one
> had
> different 'reference values' for different queries. So, I changed the
> equals
We've implemented a custom sort class and use it to sort by distance. We
have implemented the equals and hashcode in the sort comparator. After
running for a few hours we're reaching peak memory usage and eventually the
server runs out of memory. We did some profiling and noticed that a large
We've written our own custom sorter to be able to sort on the latitude and
longitude fields from the results. We have an index that is about
18million records and 12GB on disk in size. We allocated about 3GB of heap
to the index and with about 1 request to the index every 2 or 3 seconds we
would
Thanks for all this. We're doing warmup searching also, but just for
some common date searches. The warmup would be a good place to add some
pre-caching capability. I'll plan for this eventually and start with the
partial cache for now.
Thanks,
Brian Beard
-Original Message
-
From: Beard, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:08 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: RE: how do I get my own TopDocHitCollector?
Thanks for the post. So you're using the doc id as the key into the
cache to retrieve the external id. Then what mechan
Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:19 PM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: how do I get my own TopDocHitCollector?
Beard, Brian wrote:
> Question:
>
> The documents that I index have two id's - a unique document id and a
> record_id that can link multiple documents together that
Question:
The documents that I index have two id's - a unique document id and a
record_id that can link multiple documents together that belong to a
common record.
I'd like to use something like TopDocs to return the first 1024 results
that have unique record_id's, but I will want to skip some o
I would love to revisit this one. I implemented pseudo date boosting in an
overly simplistic manner in my app, which I know can be improved upon. Might
it be useful to reopen a thread on the topic?
Brian
-Original Message-
From: prabin meitei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wed
I had a similar problem (I think). Look at using a WildcardFilter
(below), possibly wrapped in a CachingWrapperFilter, depending if you
want to re-use it. I over-rode the method QueryParser.getWildcardQuery
to customize it. In your case you would probably have to specifically
detect for the presenc
ew BitSet();
with
= new BitSet(reader.maxDocs());
Beard, Brian wrote:
> Mark,
>
> Thanks so much.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 1:54 PM
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Wildcard
.doc());
}
} else {
break;
}
} while (enumerator.next());
} finally {
termDocs.close();
enumerator.close();
}
return bits;
}
}
- Mark
Beard, Brian wrote:
> I'm trying to over-ride QueryParser.getW
I'm trying to over-ride QueryParser.getWildcardQuery to use filtering.
I'm missing something, because the following still gets the
maxBooleanClauses limit.
I guess the terms are still expanded even though the query is wrapped in
a filter. How do I avoid the term expansion altogether? Is there a
b
idable to provide a hook for
you to return a Query object of your choosing (e.g. ConstantScoreQuery
wrapping your choice of filter)
Cheers
Mark
- Original Message
From: "Beard, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, 9 October, 2007 3:2
I'm currently using rangeFilter's and queryWrapperFilter's to get around
the max boolean clause limit.
A couple of questions concerning this:
1) Is it good design practice to substitue every term containing a
wildcard with a queryWrapperFilter, and a rangeQuery with a RangeFilter
and ChainedFilt
Mike,
Thanks for all the info. We'll be making a decision here soon whether to
use NFS or not. If we give it a go, or a test run I'll post our
experiences.
Brian
-Original Message-
From: Michael McCandless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 4:38 PM
To:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-673
This says the NFS mount problem is still open, is this the case?
Has anyone been able to deal with this adequately?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
parser = new QueryParser();
parser.setAllowLeadingWildcard(true);
-Original Message-
From: Martin Spamer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:06 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: All keys for a field
I need to return all of the keys for a
That works, thanks.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yonik Seeley
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:57 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: MultiSearcher holds on to index - optimization not one segment
On 6/19/07, Beard, Brian
: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:06 AM
To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: MultiSearcher holds on to index - optimization not one segment
On 6/19/07, Beard, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem I'm having is once the MultiSearcher is open, it holds on to
> t
ing before. Any ideas
are appreciated.
Brian Beard
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I noticed in previous discussion about some index integrity detection
classes that were around in version 1.4 (NoOpDirectory or
NullDirectory). Does anyone know if this in the 2.1.0 release? I didn't
see in 2.1.0 or the contrib folders.
Brian
Using the lucene API, is there a way to copy the contents and
parameters of fields between documents in different indexes? Without
requiring the field to be stored or needing to pass around the
fulltext contents of the field.
I guess I am looking for
doc.add(new Field("contentsNew", copyFr
On Feb 1, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Brian Whitman wrote:
I'm looking for a way to search by a field's internal TF vector
representation.
MoreLikeThis does not seem to be what I want-- it constructs a text
query based on the top scoring TF-IDF terms. I want to query by TF
vecto
I'm looking for a way to search by a field's internal TF vector
representation.
MoreLikeThis does not seem to be what I want-- it constructs a text
query based on the top scoring TF-IDF terms. I want to query by TF
vector directly, bypassing the tokens.
Lucene understandably has knowledge
ide
protected org.apache.lucene.search.Query getWildcardQuery(String field,
String termStr)
throws ParseException {
return super.getWildcardQuery(getUnstemmed(field), termStr);
}
}
--
Brian Caruso
Programmer/Analyst
Albert R. Mann Library
Corn
er. What's the
difference, and what's the benefit of one over the
other??
Thanks, Brian
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
h
Hej Paul,
Then, if no comparator is found in the cache, a new one is created (line
> 193) and then stored in the cache (line 202). HOWEVER, both the cache
> lookup() and store() do NOT take into account locale; if we, on the same
> index reader, try to do one search sorted by Locale.FRENCH and one
lucene. In our environment we
found that the best increase was by upgrading to lucene-1.9.1.
A little more info can be found here http://www.lucenebook.com/blog/errata/
/Brian
Hello Everyone,
I currently have an IndexSearch working Great!
What I want to do now, is move to a multi Index
search. What's the best way to go about it? Is it a
simple process? Any thought's would be appreciated.
Thanks, B
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Ti
ery 3 days for every
> workstation.
>
> For assessing network files I'm using JCIFS
> (jcifs.samba.org)
>
> Questions?
>
> Brian wrote:
> > Quick Question,
> > Is it possible to create an index & search
> based
> > on file names?
> &
Cool,
Basically I have soming similar to:
name_division.date_order_code
So I'm guessing I need to tokenize.
Thanks, B
--- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Brian wrote:
> > Quick Question,
> > Is it possible to create an ind
Quick Question,
Is it possible to create an index & search based
on file names?
Thanks,
B
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---
Would you want to update, or could you just append to
an existing Index?
Thanks, B
--- Ray Tsang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This could be off topic, but I made something that
> updates indices
> that worked like the following, wonder if anybody
> has the same ideas?
> I found something like In
)
B
--- Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 22, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Brian wrote:
> > All,
> > I've been able to create an index across the
> > network. However when I do my search, the link I'm
> > trying to generate show's
All,
I've been able to create an index across the
network. However when I do my search, the link I'm
trying to generate show's null. What it actually
points to is http://localhost/mywebapp
Where should I be looking in order to have my link
generated correctly.
Thanks in
pointers. I'm new to java and lucene.
Thanks in advance.
Brian
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
To unsubs
mples), or the URL of the lucene
> application as seen
> through Tomcat?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June 2005 16:48
> To: java-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: IndexHTML.java location
>
>
> Not sure if this is
Not sure if this is the right address, to request this
kind of help, so if it isn't please point me else
where.
Basically I think I have an understanding of how
Lucene works, in general.
I believe I'm at a point where I need to change the
"default" url, so I was planning to make the change in
the
for much java, at least not at my site.
> :
> : I'll have a look and let you know, just for the record, how things
> : turn out.
>
>
> -Hoss
>
>
> -----
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Otis,
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:31:22AM -0500, Brian Cuttler wrote:
>
> Otis,
>
> > If by shtml you mean HTML with server-side includes, then note that you
> > will not be able to do this with Lucene alone, as server-side includes
> > are not static.
>
> My un
recommend to her ?
thank you,
Brian
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:40:41PM -0800, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> Brian,
>
> It sounds like you are using a little demo application that comes with
> Lu
thank you,
Brian
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:40:41PM -0800, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:
> Brian,
>
> It sounds like you are using a little demo application that comes with
> Lucene. This is really just a demo that shows how you can use Lucene.
imply not understood) the docs that might give the options
we are hoping to implement.
Thank you in advance,
Brian
---
Brian R Cuttler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer Systems Support
93 matches
Mail list logo
