Yes. Score is the default ordering. For "ties," insertion order is the
default. That order could change based on which node is replicated to first and
the different coverage plan may showcase that.
Zeeshan Lakhani
programmer |
software engineer at @basho |
org. member/founder of @papers_we_l
Great!! But can you explain why this issue?
On Monday, December 21, 2015, Zeeshan Lakhani wrote:
> Best to provide a specific sort ordering on a field if you can.
>
> Zeeshan Lakhani
> programmer |
> software engineer at @basho |
> org. member/founder of @papers_we_love |
> twitter => @zeeshanla
Best to provide a specific sort ordering on a field if you can.
Zeeshan Lakhani
programmer |
software engineer at @basho |
org. member/founder of @papers_we_love |
twitter => @zeeshanlakhani
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 21:54, Garrido wrote:
>
> No, we don’t provide a sort on the query, let us chec
No, we don’t provide a sort on the query, let us check and we can tell you if
its the same score, but, in case of search returns the same score, which one
will be the solution?
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:21 PM, Zeeshan Lakhani wrote:
>
> The coverage plan can change per query. Are you providing
The coverage plan can change per query. Are you providing a sort on the query?
If not or if by score, does each item return the same score?
Zeeshan Lakhani
programmer |
software engineer at @basho |
org. member/founder of @papers_we_love |
twitter => @zeeshanlakhani
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 18:3
No, we didn`t any change on the configuration storage, we only increases the
SOLR memory in the JVM Options.
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 7:21 PM, Bryan Hunt wrote:
>
> It would seem the order of recreation may be different to that of the
> original ingest. Isn't sorting best performed on the applic
It would seem the order of recreation may be different to that of the original
ingest. Isn't sorting best performed on the application server side in order
to reduce demands on cluster RAM anyway? When you migrated to the new cluster
did you make any change to the storage configuration ?
Ori
Solr (2.x),
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Bryan Hunt wrote:
>
> In the context of Solr (2.x), legacy (1.4), or secondary indexes (2i) (1.x+)?
>
>
> Original Message
> From: Garrido
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 11:36 PM
> To: riak-users@lists.basho.com
> Subject: Riak Search Paginati
In the context of Solr (2.x), legacy (1.4), or secondary indexes (2i) (1.x+)?
Original Message
From: Garrido
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 11:36 PM
To: riak-users@lists.basho.com
Subject: Riak Search Pagination
Hello,
Recently we migrated our Riak nodes to another network, so we backup
Hello,
Recently we migrated our Riak nodes to another network, so we backup the data
and then regenerate the ring, all is well, but there is a strange behaviour in
a riak search, for example if we execute a query using the riak_erlang_client,
returns the objects in the order:
A, B, C
And the
10 matches
Mail list logo
