Hi everybody,
I'm facing the same problem on solr 7.3.
Probably requesting a longer session to zk (the default 10s seems too
short) will solve the problem but I'm puzzled by the fact that this error
is reported by solrj as a SolrException with status code 400 (BAD_REQUEST).
in ZkStateReader
Hi everyone,
I'm evaluating suggesters that can can be in near real time and I came
across
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-5477.
Is there a way to use this functionality from solr?
Thanks very much
Matteo Grolla
Hi,
on solr 4 the log contained informations about time spent and memory
consumed uninverting a field.
Where can I find this information on current version of solr?
Thanks
--excerpt from solr 4.10 log--
INFO - 2018-04-09 15:57:58.720; org.apache.solr.request.UnInvertedField;
UnInverted mul
Right Alessandro that's another bug
Cheers
2017-04-27 12:30 GMT+02:00 alessandro.benedetti :
> +1
> I would add that what is called : "Avg. Document Size (KB)" seems more to
> me
> "Avg. Field Size (KB)".
> Cheers
>
>
>
> -
> ---
> Alessandro Benedetti
> Search Consultant, R&D Sof
It seems me that the estimation in MB is in fact an estimation in GB
the formula includes the avg doc size, which is in kb, so the result is in
kb and should be divided by 1024 to obtain the result in MB.
But it's divided by 1024*1024
Hi Alessandro,
your shot in the dark was interesting, but the behaviour doesn't
depend on the field being mandatory, it works like this for every field. So
it seems just wrong
df=field&q=*
should be translated as field:*
not as *:*
2016-07-28 10:32 GMT+02:00 Matteo Grolla :
>
(field);
// *:* -> MatchAllDocsQuery
if ("*".equals(termStr)) {
if ("*".equals(field) || getExplicitField() == null) {
return newMatchAllDocsQuery();
}
}
2016-07-28 9:40 GMT+02:00 Matteo Grolla :
> I noticed the behaviour in solr 4.10 and 5.4.1
>
I noticed the behaviour in solr 4.10 and 5.4.1
2016-07-28 9:36 GMT+02:00 Matteo Grolla :
> Hi,
> I'm surprised by lucene query parser translating this query
>
> http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?df=id&q=*
>
> in
>
> MatchAllDocsQuery(*:*)
>
Hi,
I'm surprised by lucene query parser translating this query
http://localhost:8983/solr/collection1/select?df=id&q=*
in
MatchAllDocsQuery(*:*)
I was expecting it to execute: "id:*"
is it a bug or a desired behaviour? If desired can you explain why?
Hi,
the export handler returns 0 for null numeric values.
Can someone explain me why it doesn't leave the field off the record like
string or multivalue fields?
thanks
Matteo
Hi,
is there a reason why the export handler doesn't support date fields?
thanks
Matteo Grolla
white cat"
>
> Can you open a JIRA for this?
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > I have a problem with nested queries
> > If the order is:
> > 1) query
> > 2) nested query (embedded in _q
Hi everyone,
I have a problem with nested queries
If the order is:
1) query
2) nested query (embedded in _query_:"...")
everything works fine
if it is the opposite, like this
http://localhost:8983/solr/test/select?q=_query_:%22{!lucene%20df=name_t}(\%22black%20dog\%22)%22%20OR%20name_t:%22whi
ot use GET
> HTTP method ( -XGET ) and pass parameters in POST (-d).
>
> Try to remove the -XGET parameter.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I'm experimenting the query rest api with solr 5.4 and I'm noticing
>
Hi,
I'm experimenting the query rest api with solr 5.4 and I'm noticing
that query parameters are not logged in solr.log.
Here are query and log line
curl -XGET 'localhost:8983/solr/test/query' -d '{"query":"*:*"}'
2016-04-28 09:16:54.008 INFO (qtp668849042-17) [ x:test]
o.a.s.c.S.Request
bulk of qtime.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
>
> > virtual hardware, 200ms is taken on the client until response is written
> to
> > disk
> > qtime on solr is ~90ms
> > not great but acceptable
>
-- Jack Krupansky
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jack,
> > response time scale with rows. Relationship doens't seem linear but
> > Below 400 rows times are much faster,
> > I view query times from solr logs and
like? Is it complex or use wildcards or function
> queries, or is it very simple keywords? How many operators?
>
> Have you used the debugQuery=true parameter to see which search components
> are taking the time?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Matt
Is this a scenario that was working fine and suddenly deteriorated, or has
> it always been slow?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I'm trying to optimize a solr application.
> > The b
[image: Immagine incorporata 1]
2016-02-11 16:05 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla :
> I see a lot of time spent in splitOnTokens
>
> which is called by (last part of stack trace)
>
> BinaryResponseWriter$Resolver.writeResultsBody()
> ...
> solr.search.Re
Matteo Grolla :
> Hi Yonic,
> after the first query I find 1000 docs in the document cache.
> I'm using curl to send the request and requesting javabin format to mimic
> the application.
> gc activity is low
> I managed to load the entire 50GB index in the filesystem cach
k activity anymore.
Time improves now queries that took ~30s take <10s. But I hoped better
I'm going to use jvisualvm's sampler to analyze where time is spent
2016-02-11 15:25 GMT+01:00 Yonik Seeley :
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
> > Thanks
; On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 11:53 +0100, Matteo Grolla wrote:
> > I'm working with solr 4.0, sorting on score (default).
> > I tried setting the document cache size to 2048, so all docs of a single
> > request fit (2 requests fit actually)
> > If I execute a qu
nd it takes 15s
execute it with rows = 400 and it takes 3s
it seems that below rows = 400 times are acceptable, beyond they get slow
2016-02-11 11:27 GMT+01:00 Upayavira :
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016, at 09:33 AM, Matteo Grolla wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'm trying to optim
Hi,
I'm trying to optimize a solr application.
The bottleneck are queries that request 1000 rows to solr.
Unfortunately the application can't be modified at the moment, can you
suggest me what could be done on the solr side to increase the performance?
The bottleneck is just on fetching the re
ok,
suggester was responsible for the long time to load.
Thanks
2016-01-12 15:47 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla :
> Thanks Shawn,
> On a production solr instance some cores take a long time to load
> while other of similar size take much less. One of the differences between
> th
Thanks Shawn,
On a production solr instance some cores take a long time to load
while other of similar size take much less. One of the differences between
these cores is the directoryFactory.
2016-01-12 15:34 GMT+01:00 Shawn Heisey :
> On 1/12/2016 2:50 AM, Matteo Grolla wrote:
> >
Hi,
can you confirm me that realtime get requirements are just:
true
json
true
${solr.ulog.dir:}
that some of your clauses are very restrictive, I
> wonder what happens if
> you add a cost in. fq's are evaluated in cost order (when
> cache=false), so what happens
> in this case?
> &fq={!cache=false cost=101}n_rea:xxx&fq={!cache=false
> cost=102}provincia:&f
gt;> > a) Use the LeastFrequentlyUsed or LFU eviction policy.
> >> > b) Set the size to whatever number of fqs you find suitable.
> >> > You can do this like so:
> >> > >> > autoWarmCount="10"/>
> >> > You shoul
//yonik.com/advanced-filter-caching-in-solr/
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:28 PM Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > after looking at the presentation of cloudsearch from lucene
> revolution
> > 2014
> >
> >
> https://www.youtube.com/wa
Hi Luca,
not sure if I understood well. Your question is
"Why are index times on a solr cloud collecton with 2 replicas higher than
on solr cloud with 1 replica" right?
Well with 2 replicas all docs have to be deparately indexed in 2 places and
solr has to confirm that both indexing went well
Hi,
after looking at the presentation of cloudsearch from lucene revolution
2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI1x0d-yO8A&list=PLU6n9Voqu_1FM8nmVwiWWDRtsEjlPqhgP&index=49
min 17:08
I recognized I'd love to be able to remove the burden of disabling filter
query caching from developers
the p
ommit happened between the original
> insert and the delete? Just askin'...
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
> > Thanks Shawn,
> >I'm aware that solr isn't transactional and I don't need this
> pro
maintained by
successive solr version.
2015-11-18 16:51 GMT+01:00 Shawn Heisey :
> On 11/18/2015 8:21 AM, Matteo Grolla wrote:
> > On Solr 4.10.3 I'm noting a different (desired) behaviour
> >
> > 1) add document x
> > 2) delete document x
> > 3) commit
> &
On Solr 4.10.3 I'm noting a different (desired) behaviour
1) add document x
2) delete document x
3) commit
document x doesn't get indexed.
The question now is: Can I count on this behaviour or is it just incidental?
2014-11-05 22:21 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla :
> Perfectly clear,
>
eper nodes
> down.
>
> -- Pushkar Raste
> On Oct 29, 2015 4:33 PM, "Matteo Grolla" wrote:
>
> > Hi Walter,
> > it's not a problem to take down zk for a short (1h) time and
> > reconfigure it. Meanwhile solr would go in readonly mode.
> &g
d.org/ (my blog)
>
>
> > On Oct 29, 2015, at 10:08 AM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm designing a solr cloud installation where nodes from a single cluster
> > are distributed on 2 datacenters which are close and very well connected.
> > let's
I'm designing a solr cloud installation where nodes from a single cluster
are distributed on 2 datacenters which are close and very well connected.
let's say that zk nodes zk1, zk2 are on DC1 and zk2 is on DC2 and let's say
that DC1 goes down and the cluster is left with zk3.
how can I restore a zk
2
and using those as solrhome for the nodes
created the collection with
bin/solr create -c test
so it's using the builtin schemaless configuration
there's nothing custom, should be all pretty standard
2015-10-15 17:42 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Benedetti
:
> Hi Matteo,
>
> On 15 Octob
Hi,
I'm doing this test
collection test is replicated on two solr nodes running on 8983, 8984
using external zk
1)turn on solr 8984
2)add,commit a doc x con solr 8983
3)turn off solr 8983
4)turn on solr 8984
5)shortly after (leader still not elected) turn on solr 8983
6)8984 is elected as le
t
> at a time when the batch has errors and rely on Solr overwriting
> any docs in the batch that were indexed the first time.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > if I need fine grained error reporting I use Ht
Hi,
if I need fine grained error reporting I use Http Solr server and send
1 doc per request using the add method.
I report errors on exceptions of the add method,
I'm using autocommit so I'm not seing errors related to commit.
Am I loosing some errors? Is there a better way?
Thanks
Hi,
what is the performance impact of issuing a splitshard on a live node
used for searches?
lso_ does is force all of the work for a query onto one
>> node and all indexing for a particular producer ditto. And will cause you to
>> manually monitor your shards to see if some of them grow out of proportion
>> to others. And
>>
>> I think it would be much le
Hi
I'd like some feedback on how I'd like to solve the following sharding problem
I have a collection that will eventually become big
Average document size is 1.5kb
Every year 30 Million documents will be indexed
Data come from different document producers (a person, owner of his documents)
an
> When you used the keywordTokenizer, was there other analysis such as
> lowercasing going on?
>
> -Yonik
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>I tried performing a join query
>>{!join from=fA to=fB}
Hi,
I tried performing a join query
{!join from=fA to=fB}
where fA was string and fB was text using keywordTokenizer
it doesn't work, but it does if either fields are both string or both
text.
If you confirm this is the correct behavior I'll upda
Hi,
is there any public benchmark or description of how the solr stats
component works?
Matteo
Wow!!!
thanks Joe!
Il giorno 02/feb/2015, alle ore 15:05, Joseph Obernberger ha scritto:
> I have a similar use-case. Check out the export capability and using
> cursorMark.
>
> -Joe
>
> On 2/2/2015 8:14 AM, Matteo Grolla wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I'm t
Hi,
I'm thinking about having an instance of solr (SolrA) with all fields
stored and just id indexed in addition with a normal production instance of
solr (SolrB) that is used for the searches.
This would allow me to read only what changed from previous crawl, update SolrA
and send the f
Solved!
ubuntu has an entry like this in /etc/hosts
127.0.1.1
to properly run solrcloud one must substitute 127.0.1.1 with a real (possibly
permanent) ip address
Il giorno 12/gen/2015, alle ore 12:47, Matteo Grolla ha scritto:
> Hi,
> hope someone can h
Hi,
hope someone can help me troubleshoot this issue.
I'm trying to setup a solrcloud cluster with
-zookeeper on 192.168.1.8 (osx mac)
-solr1 on 192.168.1.10 (virtualized ubuntu running on mac)
-solr2 on 192.168.1.3 (ubuntu on another pc)
the problem is th
; document.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> -----Original Message- From: Matteo Grolla
> Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 4:47 AM
> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: add and then delete same document before commit,
>
> Can anyone tell me the behavior of solr (and if i
Can anyone tell me the behavior of solr (and if it's consistent) when I do what
follows:
1) add document x
2) delete document x
3) commit
I've tried with solr 4.5.0 and document x get's indexed
Matteo
Thanks really a lot Yonik!
Il giorno 03/nov/2014, alle ore 15:51, Yonik Seeley ha scritto:
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Matteo Grolla wrote:
>> HI,
>>can anybody give me a confirm?
>> If I add multiple document with the same id but differing on other fields
HI,
can anybody give me a confirm?
If I add multiple document with the same id but differing on other fields and
then issue a commit (no commits before this) the last added document gets
indexed, right?
H.p.
using solr 4 and default settings for optimistic locking.
Matteo
Hi,
I developed a new SolResponseWriter but I'm not happy with how I wrote
tests.
My problem is that I need to test it either with local request and with
distributed request since the solr response object (input to the response
writer) are different.
a) I tested the local request case
Thanks very much,
i realized too late that that I skipped an important part of the wiki
documentation "this example assumes /detType=func"
thanks a lot
Il giorno 06/mag/2014, alle ore 21:05, Yonik Seeley ha scritto:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 5:08 AM, Matteo Grolla
Hi everybody,
I'm having troubles with the function query
"query(subquery, default)"
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#query
running this
http://localhost:8983/solr/select?q=query($qq,1)&qq={!dismax qf=text}hard drive
on collection1 gives me no results
but
Thanks a lot
and thanks for pointing me at the video. I missed it
Matteo
Il giorno 05/mag/2014, alle ore 20:44, Chris Hostetter ha scritto:
> : Hi everybody
> : can anyone give me a suitable interpretation for cat_rank in
> : http://people.apache.org/~hossman/ac2012eu/ slide 15
>
>
Hi everybody
can anyone give me a suitable interpretation for cat_rank in
http://people.apache.org/~hossman/ac2012eu/ slide 15
thanks
Hi,
I'd really appreciate if you could give me some help understanding how
to tune the document cache.
My thoughts:
min values: max_results * max_concurrent_queries, as stated by
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrCaching
how can I estimate max_concurrent_queries?
'll be best to specify openSearcher=false for max indexing throughput
> BTW. You should be able to do this quite frequently, 15 seconds seems
> quite reasonable.
>
> Best,
> Erick
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Matteo Grolla
> wrote:
>> I'd like
I'd like to have some suggestion on how to improve the indexing performance on
the following scenario
I'm uploading 1M docs to solr,
every docs has
id: sequential number
title: small string
date: date
body: 1kb of text
Here are my benchmarks (they are all single
searcher?
-Is it a good idea to set
openSearcher=false in auto commit
and rely on soft auto commit to see new data in searches?
thanks
Matteo Grolla
66 matches
Mail list logo
