Using an ssd would be kind of like replacing the disk with ram and run
relatively fast,
> On Dec 8, 2024, at 1:21 AM, ufuk yılmaz wrote:
>
> There is a demo/trial environment where I’m trying to run many very small
> Solrs, each with a single core and only a few documents.
>
> I limited the
I used to fork my solr indexer across 64 cpu cores, memory consumption was my
major issue so just threw ssds and ram at the issue, 500 gb index post a commit
followed by an optimize later it worked fine. Obviously the last commit was
heavy but it didn’t need to be real time so I had that advan
done)
Hope it works, look forward to the follow up
Dave
> On May 20, 2023, at 1:53 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
>
> On 5/19/23 15:39, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>> Please confirm the following:
>> 1. Solr index is created with Solr 7.something
>> 2. Solr 8.x is deployed
Send me a personal email
> On May 4, 2023, at 11:23 AM, ufuk yılmaz wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> First of all forgive me if asking this here is inappropriate, but I couldn’t
> think of a better place where all Solr experts gather.
>
> I have been working as the main “solr person” at a project sinc
to
Make sure you are getting what you want.
-Dave
> On May 2, 2023, at 2:22 PM, Bill Tantzen wrote:
>
> I'm using the solrconfig.xml from the distribution,
> ./server/solr/configsets/_default/conf/solrconfig.xml
>
> But this problem extends to the index as well; us
I think there are more important questions here. What do you want with a *:*
query? Do you want all the results in on return? Or do you just want the count
of total documents? Or to put the results in facets? *:* should never take
long unless you are requesting every single document not just
The recent flag is super clever, and you can use it on other
applications/situations as well. I would do that in a heartbeat assuming you
can reindex your data set quickly
> On Apr 12, 2023, at 10:49 AM, Alessandro Benedetti
> wrote:
>
> Following up on Mikhail good insights,
> I would prob
te. Test with that value.
>>
>> wunder
>> Walter Underwood
>> wun...@wunderwood.org
>> https://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
>>
>>>> On Mar 9, 2023, at 5:23 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>
>>> Agreed, but often times as a developer you a
I am definitely interested in this
> On Mar 10, 2023, at 7:48 AM, Alessandro Benedetti
> wrote:
>
> Given it's almost time for an upcoming live training of ours, I take the
> occasion for a bit of self-promotion :)
>
> The 16th of March we host the Neural Search training for Apache Solr:
>
>
f
> Solr to lower the footprint than to add >30g.
>
> Jan
>
>> 9. mar. 2023 kl. 12:52 skrev Dave :
>>
>> Again, set to less than 32, I liked 30
>>
>>>> On Mar 9, 2023, at 1:04 AM, Deepak Goel wrote:
>>>
>>> The max
B, and only increase it if there is enough memory pressure. One thing
>> that I don't know is whether Java will use the 32 bit pointers with the
>> Xmx at 40g. It probably won't, so I expect that memory usage would be
>> more efficient if you set the max heap to 31g.
&g
-Xms3M
-Xmx3M
Keep them the same, no spaces, I preferred to use M , never go above 32g cause
reasons (jvm gets weird after 32) and make sure your machine still has the
memory to hold your index.
> On Mar 8, 2023, at 11:27 AM, HariBabu kuruva
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have set the
And make sure you can always reindex the entire data set at any given moment.
Solr/search isn’t meant to be a data store nor reliable. It should be able to
be destroyed and recreated when ever needed.
> On Jan 29, 2023, at 1:53 PM, marc nicole wrote:
>
> so to sum up, it's indexation at data
You can have 40+ million documents and half a terabyte index size and still not
need spark or solr cloud or sharding and get sub second results. Don’t over
think it until it becomes a real issue
> On Jan 29, 2023, at 1:53 PM, marc nicole wrote:
>
> Much appreciated.
>
>> Le dim. 29 janv. 20
Put an nginx front for about three solr servers that does a drop down failover.
You always want one to be the primary for caching and that few searches, then
drop down to the other couple on failure
> On Jan 17, 2023, at 12:07 PM, Matthew Castrigno wrote:
>
>
> What is the best approach for
n batches. It'll be faster than
> sending each document in a separate request.
>
> Op vr 13 jan. 2023 om 16:41 schreef Dave :
>
>> Yeah, it’s trivial building your own indexer in any language that can read
>> a db. Also I wouldn’t trust the dih on its own even when suppor
Yeah, it’s trivial building your own indexer in any language that can read a
db. Also I wouldn’t trust the dih on its own even when supported
> On Jan 13, 2023, at 10:17 AM, Jan Høydahl wrote:
>
> I don't think the 3rd party DIH is maintained.
>
> Other options are using other 3rd party fram
ucene/issues/12080
> I found a small change in code that seem to fix the problem.
> Thank you Dave for the feedback!
>
> W dniu 11.01.2023 o 15:17, Dave pisze:
>> On one hand that’s great news, on the other ot probably deserves a ticket
>> but you need to have a very sp
document matches, as expected.
>
> Still, it looks like SGF was designed to work well when used only in query,
> and it's just a bug revealed by an edge case. Shall I submit an issue to
> https://github.com/apache/lucene ?
>
> W dniu 11.01.2023 o 13:09, Dave pisze:
>
ote:
>
> W dniu 11.01.2023 o 12:04, Dave pisze:
>> Hmm. As an experiment what happens when you use a range of three or four
>> with the quotes using the tilda in the query?
>
> You mean query like "test polskie"~1 ? Yes, it does match.
>
> Unfortunately it's
Hmm. As an experiment what happens when you use a range of three or four with
the quotes using the tilda in the query?
Also generally o find it best to use the same filters for both indexing and
query, just a personal preference, I know it’s not always possible however.
> On Jan 11, 2023, at 5
Eric, that is super clever. But how does it effect ranking if you do a general
search? Since each collection has its own idf etc?
-Dave
> On Dec 28, 2022, at 7:03 AM, Eric Pugh
> wrote:
>
> You may find it an easier path forward to just move to SolrCloud. You can
> ru
That’s awesome. Also Perl should be on every Unix system. Personally I used
homebrew and it was super fast and easy to get it up and going
> On Dec 24, 2022, at 3:28 PM, Somnath Kumar wrote:
>
> Thank you Shawn. Just tried this and it worked!
>
> Som
>
>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 9:28 PM Shaw
Sounds like you should contact aws about it since it’s not a solr issue if the
qtimes haven’t increased in the solr logs. And again, don’t load balance but
that’s my personal opinion
> On Dec 13, 2022, at 6:50 AM, Pradeep wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I cant change it to NLB at this moment, firstly w
Ha I meant qtimes not atone. Also in general you shouldn’t use a load balancer
with solr, since you won’t be able to keep the index hot and n memory for each
subsequent query if you are paging through results. The best way in my
experience is to have failovers for your nodes, instead of load ba
You can check the atones to see if solr itself actually slowed down. As solr
has nothing to do with a load balancer I doubt it has. Also you used a sentence
that concerns me, clearing out the deleted documents, which sounds like an
optimize command. You as a user should never use that, let sol
Try adding each value separately. Not joined in code, let solr do the
multivalue work,
> On Dec 9, 2022, at 1:11 PM, Matthew Castrigno wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for your comments that appears to be the root of the problem.
>
> Fixing it raises another question.
>
> The incorrect multivalued f
"apple, pear"
That looks like a string not a multi valued field to me. Maybe I’m wrong but
you should have quotes around each element of the array
> On Dec 9, 2022, at 12:23 PM, Matthew Castrigno wrote:
>
> "apple, pear"
So it was a decision to remove the unique field id and replace it with root?
This seems, bad. You can’t have two documents with the same id/unique field.
> On Dec 9, 2022, at 7:57 AM, Jan Høydahl wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> So to be clear - you have a working fix by adding the _root_ field to your
Just out of curiosity are you using metal? And if so ran any disk io tests to
see if you may have a hardware problem on any of the nodes? A document won’t
be available until all the nodes have it so it just takes one to get slow to
slow you down
> On Dec 7, 2022, at 9:45 AM, Matias Laino
> w
Well honestly it’s more or less implied that if a field is declared required,
it’s required in all documents, parent or children. Perhaps an inherit field
would have been applicable if such exists(I don’t think so) and it’s documented
quite clearly here:
https://solr.apache.org/guide/solr/late
No one should ever actually use a .0 version
> On Oct 14, 2022, at 8:41 AM, Matthew Castrigno wrote:
>
> This issue is easily reproduced in 9.0 using the example script and logging
> cmd.solrDoc in the processAdd function.
>
> From: Eric Pugh
> Sent: Friday, O
backup, as a single server can cache the
fields way faster than round robin or whatever other metric uses to determine
who serves.
-Dave
> On Oct 11, 2022, at 1:32 PM, mtn search wrote:
>
> Thanks Dave! Yes, we ran into this issue yesterday and do need to review
> the disk s
I won’t say for certain as I have never seen this but this seems like a garbage
collection situation. Look there first to see if you can cancel that out as the
cause
> On Oct 10, 2022, at 5:59 PM, Jen-Ya Ku wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> We've deployed solr9 on OpenJDK 17 and it crashed after f
needs to be ready
for triple the size. If you don’t have the disk space ready to handle this
you’re going to eventually run into some serious issues, or just not be able to
replicate
-dave
> On Oct 10, 2022, at 2:56 PM, mtn search wrote:
>
> As I go back through
> https://sol
Exactly. In linux I would just do a 777 for such a directory anyways since no
one outside of the machine can get to it since no solr servers should have
public ip.
> On Oct 10, 2022, at 12:51 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
>
> On 10/10/22 09:23, Joe Jones (DHCW - Software Development) wrote:
>> ja
You should never index directly into your query servers by the way. Index to
the indexing server and replicate out to you query servers and tune each as
needed
> On Oct 6, 2022, at 6:52 PM, Dominique Bejean
> wrote:
>
> Thank you Dima,
>
> Updates are highly multi-threaded batch processes a
I know these machines. Sharding is kind of useless. Set the ssd tb drives up in
fastest raid read available, 31 xms xmx, one solr instance. Buy back up ssd
drives when you burn one out and it fails over to the master server. Multiple
solr instances on one machine makes little sense unless they h
I don’t have any tests but I know anything is faster than xml. You may as well
stick to text files. Xml is garbage that’s why they made yaml which is the
parent of json
> On Sep 30, 2022, at 3:47 AM, Thomas Corthals wrote:
>
> Hi Gus,
>
> I have a followup question. Is JSON parsed faster tha
Another way to handle this is have your indexing code fork out to as many cores
as the solr indexing server has. It’s way less work to force the code to run
itself that many times in parallel, and as long as your sql queries and said
tables are properly indexed the database shouldn’t be a bottle
Is there a trusted guide for running solr in docker out there? I’ve seen a few
but just wondering if you got one you like the most
> On Sep 21, 2022, at 1:32 PM, David Smiley wrote:
>
> ANNAMANENI: can you clarify what you mean by "multiple repositories"; maybe
> "repositories" is a word wit
How fast can you rebuild your index? If it’s trivial make a new field for that
field and utilize shingles with a two term specification and you *should be
able to get what you want but I can’t test it right now, but in theory it would
work
> On Sep 16, 2022, at 1:39 PM, Audrey Tesrin wrote:
>
You would need to do that in the code end of reading the document from the
index. Search indexes assume you want the complete value they don’t give
substrings,
> On Sep 15, 2022, at 9:59 AM, Shankar R wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> My solr field is defined like this
>
> ="true" multiValued="false" /
It’s more or less an understood paradigm. User->app->vpn/internal network->solr
and back.
> On Sep 2, 2022, at 2:10 PM, Victoria Stuart (VictoriasJourney.com)
> wrote:
>
> Good points, re: Solr security. Solutions, references?
Exactly. This is a serious security loophole you would be opening up. What if I
just ask for *:* and 5 rows to just, take all of your data, while
crashing your server, and just keep doing it in 20 simultaneous calls until it
dies, and even if you wake it up I’ll just turn it back on and
Why is your qf set to only those two fields and not the subject? Also in the
qf you can boost them. The filter query has no effect on the score, it just
eliminates documents that don’t meet your query
> On Aug 26, 2022, at 7:55 AM, Noah Torp-Smith wrote:
>
> OK, I've narrowed it down a bit.
an using the qf query parameter or
> setting up separate "parallel" fields of some sort?
>
> Best,
>
> Morten
>
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 17:29, Dave wrote:
>>
>> Ok so from what I’m looking at you have a proximity search so the terms
>> hav
Ok so from what I’m looking at you have a proximity search so the terms have to
be within the distance value of each other. In my example, 2, which obviously
won’t work since there are three terms. A fuzzy search is based on a single
term/token. So you need to add ~2 to each term if that’s what
Yeah you can’t post images, just the actual error itself from the interface or
the cli text
> On Aug 9, 2022, at 9:03 AM, Deepak Goel wrote:
>
> Can't see the error.
>
>> On Tue, 9 Aug 2022, 18:22 Naresh Lunavath,
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Team,
>>
>> Recently, we have upgraded solr from 7.7 t
searching for and what you want to facet against (same thing) to come up
with the other fields.
-Dave
> On Aug 9, 2022, at 7:18 AM, Eric Pugh wrote:
>
> I feel like the Solr Ref Guide ought to weigh in on this ;-).I’ll be
> curious what other folks say?
>
> I know
ote:
>
> Actually, soft links won't work either, because the snapshots aren't in a
> subdirectory of data, and each one has a different name.
>
> Cron on ec2 is a bit of a pain, but yes, that does seem like the
> best solution available.
>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 11:
Can’t you just make a cron job that runs an sh file that does a cp-rf on the
data folder with a time stamp? The indexes are drop in when needed
> On Aug 5, 2022, at 12:07 PM, Thomas Woodard wrote:
>
> That is exactly what I was afraid of. Not being able to configure where
> automated backups
——
At this point it would be interesting to see how this Processor would
increase the indexing performance when you have many duplicates
- when it comes to indexing performance with duplicates, there isn’t any
difference than a new document. It’s mark as original destroyed, and new one
replaces
Once you introduce an AND with an or condition logic starts getting funky. But
hard to tell without the actual queries
> On Jul 26, 2022, at 8:34 PM, Samuel Gutierrez
> wrote:
>
> I am working on a json post request where I need to mix AND and OR clauses
> for example:
> Condition1 AND Condi
Oh look into perls fork manager module,
https://metacpan.org/pod/Parallel::ForkManager
. Only trick is each time it spawns a process you have to redeclare the dbh and
any stored procedures but it’s a small price to pay for being able to simply
adjust the number of parallel jobs it will do
Not to mention using dynamic fields on the fly in the indexer, applying code
logic to the documents and just having full control over it has a lot of
benefits to the point that a DIH was a cute idea when it came out but it
reality it was just hand holding
> On Jul 22, 2022, at 2:19 PM, dmitri m
Well to start you should just have one shard. 1 million documents is barely
anything justifying sharding it out. So it’s really quite easy to balance one
shard and one server
> On Jul 17, 2022, at 1:26 PM, Kaminski, Adi
> wrote:
>
> So what would be the recommendation then to have balanced s
oblems when you put them into service.
>
> Yes, agree about containers. Containers are great for CPU-only applications.
> They just aren’t designed for persistent data.
>
> wunder
> Walter Underwood
> wun...@wunderwood.org
> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
Three nodes with nginx in front will handle well over 50k searches a day on a
half terabyte index, but only one node is to serve the searches the rest are
backups. I would never put solr in a container
> On Jul 17, 2022, at 10:44 AM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
>
> On 7/17/22 07:40, Ronen Nussbaum w
To be clear I don’t want to unsubscribe
> On Jul 13, 2022, at 5:18 AM, Boitumelo Molekwa
> wrote:
>
> Also me please
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nicolas Franck
> Sent: 12 July 2022 10:29 PM
> To: users@solr.apache.org
> Subject: Unsubscribe me
>
>
> CAUTION: This email originat
Can I unsubscribe anyone with a certain string in their email? Anything with
hein should no longer be subscribed
> On Jul 12, 2022, at 6:23 PM, Gus Heck wrote:
>
> Have you checked that the mails are actually going to the address you are
> unsubscribing from? If you are getting mails forwarde
Ideally yes, but I feel that pain of trying to rebuild a 500gb index and
another 500 of stored full text along side of it, plus another couple hundred
gigs of a supporting index, and all from different sources.
But yes it should be able to be done in a week or two. I never upgrade the
solr se
You could put it on a hard drive and mail it. Or just, over the internet using
replication
> On Jul 11, 2022, at 7:45 AM, Thomas Corthals wrote:
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> If possible, just rebuild it from the original source on the new server.
>
> Regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> Op ma 11 jul. 2022 om
Not sure about ku but docker you can simply mount the ssd into the service as
an alias with the volumes. Unless you have no control over the metal then this
could work?
> On Jul 6, 2022, at 8:34 PM, dmitri maziuk wrote:
>
> On 2022-07-06 2:59 PM, Shawn Heisey wrote:
>> If the mounted filesy
In my experience yea it will just be slow, but it’s hard to test truthfully
slow without a couple tens of thousands of searches to measure against. It
won’t fail fail, just read the disk. So. Get an ssd to put the index on and
then poof, you have a really fast disk to read from
> On Jul 6, 202
com/deicool
>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/deicool
>>
>> "Plant a Tree, Go Green"
>>
>> Make In India : http://www.makeinindia.com/home
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 4:43 PM Dave wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly. You could have the be
you have tuned the software to a point where you can't
>>> tune
>>>> anymore, you can then turn your eyes to hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Deepak
>>>> "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are
>>> tre
Also for $115 I can buy a terabyte of a Samsung ssd, which helps a lot. It
comes to a point where money on hardware will outweigh money on engineering man
power hours, and still come to the same conclusion. As much ram as your rack
can take and as big and fast of a raid ssd drive it can take. Re
Theoretically if this script gets executed, solr is already dead and the memory
is retrieved
> On Jun 22, 2022, at 11:04 AM, Poorna Murali wrote:
>
> Thanks Shawn for the clarification!
>
>> On 2022/06/22 14:03:43 Shawn Heisey wrote:
>>> On 6/22/22 04:40, Poorna Murali wrote:
>>> Thanks every
If you really want to have fun you build that index using the significant
phrases plus the ner and boost accordingly and I have about 90% certainty if
you do it well, you hit the mark. Amhik
> On Jun 22, 2022, at 10:08 AM, Dave wrote:
>
> This is the right answer. I could go more
/guide/8_9/stream-source-reference.html#significantterms-parameters
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joel Bernstein
> http://joelsolr.blogspot.com/
>
>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 2:37 AM Danilo Tomasoni wrote:
>>
>> Hello Dave, first of all thank you for
Two hints. The ner from solr isn’t very good, and the relatedness function is
iffy at best.
I would take a different approach. Get the ner data as you have it now and use
shingles to make a better formed complete index using stop words then use the
mlt mech to see if it’s better. If it is, g
In my experience if solr goes down it’s because it ran out of disk space, so if
you automatically just bring it back up again it will just go down again. There
are simple bash scripts you can make to run for standalone solr that will do
what you want, you just need to be sure they destroy and ch
You don’t need a new core/collection, just reindex everything again. Ideally
since you’re using standalone (way better than cloud imo) you can use the same
indexer, just do an integrity check after the fact to make sure the document
counts are the same. You don’t really need to do that delete if
Yeah, my first thought would be to have the first query with no facets and a fl
of just the id, limited to 1000, it’s a lot faster than you think if you only
return the id and no facets. Then do a secondary search for just those ids and
the facets added to that query using terms component as you
What are you doing to warm up the new server? Need to get that index into
memory with roughly the same queries you have on the other machine, for a bit.
> On Jun 2, 2022, at 11:32 AM, Chang Wang wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have a machine (EC2 instance) on AWS with solr 6.6 installed. I recently
Did you try mergeContiguous yet and see if it produced what you wanted?
> On May 20, 2022, at 8:19 AM, Endika Posadas wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am using Solr's Unified highlighter to highlight parts of a text block.
> However, I have noticed that the highlighter, instead of highlighting the
>
Solr can easily do what you want if I understand you correctly. Key terminology
to use would be “document” for the expected items your search would return, in
your case sounds like the folder with the text files, “fields” being the
metadata points for each document, in your case sounds like text
This is a good place to use a filter query as well, especially if you want
results from any combination of the tables
> On Apr 10, 2022, at 5:05 PM, Saurabh Sharma
> wrote:
>
> In case you are having very less data in tables then you should index all
> four tables in a single core. With every
This is one of the most interesting and articulate emails I’ve read about the
fundamentals in a long time. Saving this one :)
> On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:32 PM, Gus Heck wrote:
>
> Solr is not a "good" primary data store. Solr is built for finding your
> documents, not storing them. A good primary
I’ve been able to download a response from standalone solr with over 40 million
records, just takes a bit, using wget and a long timeout. I don’t know if a
browser would be able to handle that size and time to download, let alone crash
the browser altogether
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 8:00 AM, Thomas
NO. I know it’s tempting but solr is a search engine not a database. You should
at any point be able to destroy the search index and rebuild it from the
database. Most any rdbms can do what you want, or go the nosql mongo route
which is becoming popular, but never use a search engine in this w
Other things to consider, without seeing your raw query, is make sure
facet=true is in it, and ideally for facets you want a string field rather than
text and I docvalues/stored being true, then rerun a sample index and test
again. Also facets work on dynamic fields as well, I don’t. Know if doc
Again, never ever trust the result speed of a cold search. Are you warming
your index?
https://solr.apache.org/guide/6_6/query-settings-in-solrconfig.html
> On Mar 18, 2022, at 4:23 PM, Vincenzo D'Amore wrote:
>
> perSegFilter
> class:org.apache.solr.search.LRUCache
> description:LRU Cache(m
quot;,
> "rows":"1"}},
>
> then for a while, the QTime is 0. I assume (obviously) that it is cached,
> but after a while the cache expires
>
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 6:22 PM Dave wrote:
>>
>> I’ve found that each solr instance
I’ve found that each solr instance will take as many cores as it needs per
request. Your 2 sec response sounds like you just started the server and then
did that search. I never trust the first search as nothing has been put into
memory yet. I like to give my jvms 31 gb each and let Linux cache
I’m a big believer in the right tool for the job. Like what said before if
you’re doing just a field:value query or four and no complications, sure use a
standard rdbms. But if you inform the client that something like
Leaves And whitm* title^3 with bf:title^3 author ^2
Is possible, the conver
keep all action on one until it falls, and never use over 31 fb heap
size
Just is just a trial and error and complete success option snd no need of
complications with zk
-Dave
> On Mar 13, 2022, at 3:48 PM, Sam Lee wrote:
>
> How do I run Apache Solr on two servers such that I will
Solrs stats functions are great when analyzing logs if they are pre processed.
> On Feb 21, 2022, at 4:26 PM, Joel Bernstein wrote:
>
> We use Solr for logs analytics. This is a lot more power in Solr's math
> expressions than in Elastic's aggregations and Solr also has new root cause
> analys
“ I tried removing the check in SegmentInfos.java (
https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/releases/lucene-solr/8.11.1/lucene/core/src/java/org/apache/lucene/index/SegmentInfos.java#L321)
, compiled the code and ran a full sequence of index upgrades from 5.x ->
6.x -> 7.x ->8.x. The upgrade goe
Stand-alone solr is in my opinion better if you have your own machines.
Currently solr cloud with the required zoo keeper machines just makes no sense
when you can just have nginx in front of a cluster of replicated servers,
> On Nov 15, 2021, at 8:18 AM, Eric Pugh
> wrote:
>
> I generally
I have always preferred completely turning off swap on solr dedicated machines,
and especially if you can’t use an SSD.
> On Oct 26, 2021, at 12:59 PM, Paul Russell wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the helpful information.
>
> Currently we are averaging about 5.5k requests a minute for this collect
gt;> Walter Underwood
>> wun...@wunderwood.org
>> http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
>>
>>>> On Oct 23, 2021, at 4:31 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>
>>> Why ever would you not index less than three characters?
>>> “To be or not to be”
>>> Seems l
Why ever would you not index less than three characters?
“To be or not to be”
Seems like a significant search
> On Oct 23, 2021, at 7:28 AM, son hoang wrote:
>
> Yep, words less than 3 chars will not be indexed. But if "Al Abbas" text can
> be separated into a token "Abbas" (and "Al" but it
Maybe something like bq =rank:[1 TO 20]^10
I’m afk at the moment, but seems like it makes sense
> On Oct 20, 2021, at 1:44 PM, sachin gk wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> If a particular boost expression is boosting 100 Products, can we boost
> only the top 20 products and let other ranking criteria fil
Yes. Put a proxy to hold the solr instances on your server, and simply point
solrj to that proxy which has autofailover abilities already built in and you
will instantly drop down the server list of one fails to respond.
> On Oct 8, 2021, at 2:44 AM, HU Dong wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We're facing
Which parts of the scoring are confusing to you? As in specifically. Solr is
just a cover over lucene and the scoring has been documented for a long time:
http://www.lucenetutorial.com/advanced-topics/scoring.html
* Documents containing *all* the search terms are good
* Matches on rare words a
ael Conrad wrote:
>
> too late it's in progress.
>
>> On 10/6/21 9:11 AM, Dave wrote:
>> Hold on that idea then. An optimize will use three times your index size
>> possibly.
>>
>>>> On Oct 6, 2021, at 9:02 AM, Michael Conrad wrote:
gt; -Mike
>
>> On 10/6/21 8:54 AM, Dave wrote:
>> Personally I always do a full reindex when going to a new version, just
>> safer and you should always be able to do such at any point. However if you
>> got the time to spare you can do an optimize and it will force th
Also a unique id is valuable if for example you are indexing from a database,
and you use the id from the table, but of course other tables you index can
have the same id value, so your indexer can append it with the table name as a
simple example. I can’t think of any situation where you would
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
