Hi,
I am getting the following error when I try executing a query in my solr, am
not able to figure our how to fix the issue.
SEVERE: java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: -1
at
org.apache.lucene.util.packed.Packed64.get(Packed64.java:186)
at
org.apach
If you want to randomly distribute requests across shards, then I think
it's a case of Replication.
In Replication setup, all cores have the same schema AND data, so query any
core should return the same result. It is used to support heavy load. Of
course such setup will required some kind of load
Hi,
I am facing same problem. Did -Dhttp.maxConnections resolve the problem ?
Please let us know!
regards
Ranveer
On Thursday 15 December 2011 11:30 AM, samarth s wrote:
Thanks Erick and Mikhail. I'll try this out.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Erick Erickson wrote:
I'm guessing (and
I am trying to index the contents of a database for the first time, and I am
only getting the primary key of the table represented by the top level entity
in my data-config.xml file to be indexed. The database I am starting with has
three tables:
The table called docs has columns called doc_id,
Hi Erick,
I only added debugyQuery=on to the url, and did not do any configuration
with regard to DebugComponent. Seems like 'string' type should be
substituted with 'text' type.
I will paste the result here after I did some experiments.
Spark
2012/1/9 Erick Erickson
> Do you by chance have t
(12/01/10 6:31), TRAN-NGOC Minh wrote:
Last year a patch with an IgnoreTikaexception has been developped.
My question is how could I change the IgnoreTikaexception flag value
Just setting ignoreTikaException=true request parameter should work when you
calling ExtractingRequestHandler. Or you c
Hi,
Has anyone had success with multicore single node Solr configurations that have
one core acting solely as a dispatcher for the other cores? For example, say
you had 4 populated Solr cores – configure a 5th to be the definitive endpoint
with `shards` containing cores 1-4.
Is there any ad
Hello everybody
I'm setting up a manifoldcf-solr system in order to index documents.
I was able to configure solr and manifold to work together.
I'm now facing a problem which was solved last year but was not able to apply
the solution given in the mailing list.
Many document in my repository
Thanks Emmanuel!
--
Leonardo S Souza
2012/1/9 Emmanuel Espina
> *:* is parsed as a MatchAllDocsQuery and * es a wilcard query on the
> default search field. The matchalldocuments does just that, and the *
> has to resolve the wilcard (that is building a automaton query in
> newer versions of
Hi,
Are there plans for bringing distributed capabilities for the external file
field? I've not seem any hints for this in the work in distributed indexing,
nor on the wiki or elsewhere.
Will we be able to send a very large file and have it sliced up and have the
values sent to the designated s
*:* is parsed as a MatchAllDocsQuery and * es a wilcard query on the
default search field. The matchalldocuments does just that, and the *
has to resolve the wilcard (that is building a automaton query in
newer versions of Lucene). Also if a document has the default field
empty that document will n
No, omitTermFreqAndPositions and omitNorms parameter must be set in
the definition of the field in the schema.xml. (in the example config
is shown).
Have you analyzed the scoring information produced by debugQuery=true?
Add that to the query parameters. That will produce information for
each docum
Have you looked at payloads?
Best
Erick
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:10 PM, wrote:
> Hi All:
> I have been using Solr for a few months now. however I have ran into a
> situation where now I need to have additional values (like score) to a
> multivalued field.
> for example:
> field def :
>
We do this in production and haven't had any issues. This is a 1.4.1
installation, back when there was no "threads" option in DIH. We divide the
index into 8 parts and then run 8 DIH handlers at the same time, indexing
simultaneously. While Lucene itself is a bottleneck, we have a lot of data
What's the difference from *:* to * when querying solr core?
Using * takes longer and do not match all documents. Is it that right?
thanks!
--
Leonardo S Souza
The query comes off of the search page looking like:
:/solr_/select?q=Budget%20Examiner%2FBudget%20Examiner%20%28Public%20Finance%29&hl=true&hl.fragsize=200&wt=json&start=0
And the solrconfig section for the parser in use looks like:
dismax
explicit
0.01
titl
Is it safe or advisable to run multiple dataimport handler requests on
one Solr core simultaneously?
Thanks,
Shawn
Hi All:
I have been using Solr for a few months now. however I have ran into a
situation where now I need to have additional values (like score) to a
multivalued field.
for example:
field def :
For each of the values, there is a corresponding score that I need to keep
track of. The b
Hi All:
I have been using Solr for a few months now. however I have ran into a
situation where now I need to have additional values (like score) to a
multivalued field.
for example:
field def :
For each of the values, there is a corresponding score that I need to keep
track of. Th
How are you building your query? For your case it appears that the
edismax query parser should solve it
A good solution to this kind of problem involves:
Storing norms (omitNorms=false) in the fields to search
Storing the position of the terms (omitTermFreqAndPositions=false) in
the fields to sear
We're in the process of implementing solr to search our web site, and
have run into a response tuning issue. When a user searches for a
string which is an exact match of a document title, for example "Budget
Examiner/Budget Examiner(Public Finance)", the number of hits in the
body of much longer
Thanks for the reply
On Dec 30, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> : I'm having an issue with the way the WordDelimiterFilter parses compound
> : words. My field declaration is simple, looks like this:
> :
> :
> :
> : preserveOriginal="1"/>
> :
> :
am i making any mistake with xpathentityprocessor?
i am using solr 1.4
please help me to solve this problem?
Thanks & Regards,
Vishal Parekh
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/xpathentityprocessor-with-flattern-true-tp3637928p3645013.html
Sent from the Solr
Do you by chance have the debugQuery on by default?
Because if you look down in the "timing" section,
you can see the times the various components took to do
their work, there are two sections "prepare" and "process".
The cumulative time is 17.156 seconds. Of which 17.156
seconds is reported to be
Be a little careful when looking at the index files on disk, see:
http://lucene.apache.org/java/3_5_0/fileformats.html#file-names
One issue is that you can pretty much ignore the *.fdt and *.fdx
files when thinking about the amount of RAM you need. These
files have to do with stored data and reall
Hi Erick,
Thanks for you reply. Actually I did the following search:
survey_url:http\://www.someurl.com/sch/i.html* referal_url:http\://
www.someurl.com/sch/i.html* page_url:http\://www.someurl.com/sch/i.html*
I did not prepend any asterisk to the field value, but only append to them.
I analyze
Thanx!
Not looking at Lucene project I totally missed that.
Keep up the good work.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Highlight-with-multi-word-synonyms-tp3610466p3644729.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
(12/01/09 21:51), O. Klein wrote:
Koji, maybe you missed my confirmation due to the hijacking of the thread.
I am using Solr 4.0 and after reindexing with LUCENE_33 I got the behaviour
for highlighting I want. So yeah, I can confirm this is a bug.
Looking forward to a fix :)
The fix of the p
Thanks for the fast reply. I went with your suggestion and saved the full
category path as well the category_id as integer. I also tested the index
space consumption and it was less than I thought.
So, if i only store the category_id as an integer I have a full index size
of 246MB.
With the full c
Hi Mike,
> - exact match (disabling stemming): Ideally, users need a way of turning
> this on or off for terms in their query (e.g. [ =walking running ] would
> stem the word running, but not walking).
>
Correct, there is no way to do this with Solr just by
activating/deactivating one parameter.
Yu Shen & Arian:
We can't help much without more information. In particular, how are
the fields in question analyzed? What is the result of looking
at the admin/analysis page? What do you get when you
attach &debugQuery=on to the query?
You might review:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UsingMailingLi
Hello,
I need to write a custom solr FilterFactory which needs information about core
against which it is registered (I assume multicore environment). For some
reason I'm disallowed to implement SolrCoreAware from FilterFactory. Is it
somehow possible to obtain the core from constructor/init me
Koji, maybe you missed my confirmation due to the hijacking of the thread.
I am using Solr 4.0 and after reindexing with LUCENE_33 I got the behaviour
for highlighting I want. So yeah, I can confirm this is a bug.
Looking forward to a fix :)
Koji Sekiguchi wrote
>
> (11/12/24 21:20), O. Klein
About the search 'referal_url:*www.someurl.com*', having a wildcard at the
start will cause a dictionary scan for every term you search on unless you use
ReversedWildcardFilterFactory. That could be the cause of your slowdown if you
are I/O bound, and even if you are CPU bound for that matter.
Mike -
Indeed users won't be able to *search* for things removed by the stop filter at
index time (the terms literally aren't in the index then). But be careful with
the stored value. Analysis does not affect stored content.
Are you anonymizing before sending to Solr (if so, why stop-word blo
Sinece the hadoop task monitor will check each task, and when find it consume
to much memory, then it will kill the task, so I am currently want to find a
method to decrease the mem usage at solr side, any idea?
At 2012-01-09 17:07:09,"Tomas Zerolo" wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 01:29:39PM +08
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 01:29:39PM +0800, James wrote:
> I am build the solr index on the hadoop, and at reduce step I run the task
> that merge the indexes, each part of index is about 1G, I have 10 indexes to
> merge them together, I always get the java heap memory exhausted, the heap
> size i
A quick guess:
If you are using tomcat for example, be sure to grand unlimited virtual
memory to that process, e.g. putting
"ulimit -v unlimited"
in your tomcat-init script (if you're using Linux).
Am 09.01.2012 06:29, schrieb James:
I am build the solr index on the hadoop, and at reduce step
Hi,
I'm setting up a search system that I expect lawyers to use, and I know
they're demanding about the query operators they want. I've been looking
around a bit, and while some of these are possible on the backend, I
can't see how to enable them on the front end since they lack operators:
I am build the solr index on the hadoop, and at reduce step I run the task that
merge the indexes, each part of index is about 1G, I have 10 indexes to merge
them together, I always get the java heap memory exhausted, the heap size is
about 2G also. I wonder which part use these so many memory.
40 matches
Mail list logo
