lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Luca Molteni" <voloth...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: How to handle large field values.
Date Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:06:25 GMT
Uhm, this works great when using only one server, because I can
specify the fields in the configuration file, but It gives me a nice
nullpointer exception when using distributed shards:

HTTP Status 500 - null java.lang.NullPointerException at
org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.returnFields(QueryComponent.java:511)
at org.apache.solr.handler.component.QueryComponent.handleResponses(QueryComponent.java:270)
at


      for (SolrDocument doc : docs) {
        Object id = doc.getFieldValue(keyFieldName);
        ShardDoc sdoc = rb.resultIds.get(id.toString());
        if (returnScores && sdoc.score != null) {
          doc.setField("score", sdoc.score);
        }
        rb._responseDocs.set(sdoc.positionInResponse, doc);
      }

Any idea?

L.M.


2008/11/5 Noble Paul നോബിള്‍ नोब्ळ् <noble.paul@gmail.com>
>
> the 'fl' parameter can be added to the defaults for your search
> handler in solrconfig.xml
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Luca Molteni <volothamp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > dealing with very large fields, let's say text documents, I found that there
> > is a global slowness (on my computer)  in returning those field. Since most
> > of the time what we want is an "highlight" value of the field and not the
> > entire field, I thought that we can omit these field from the query. I've
> > tried two methods:
> >
> > - Stored = false works very well, the query is faster, but the highlightning
> > doesn't work anymore (sigh, I know it's by design).
> > - Stored = true and filtering with the "fl" parameters requires me to enter
> > all the fields by hand, since the fl query doesn't support a minus operator
> > (let's say, all the field withouth my
> > veryLargeFieldIDontWantToRetrieveButIWantToSeeAVerySmallPortion).
> >
> > Strangely, using the "fl" parameter in federeated search with "shards" and
> > two different server with different schemas, gave me strange results (no
> > results, actually). It all works well using only one shard, but it was very
> > difficult to benchmark it.
> >
> > Any advice? I hope I'm missing something.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > L.M.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --Noble Paul
Mime
View raw message