Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries
: 2) use multivalued fields as correlated vectors, so the first start : date corresponds :to the first end date corresponds to the first lat and long value. : You get them all back :in a query though, so your app would need to do extra work to sort : out which matched. if you expect a bounded number of correlated "events" per item, you can use dynaimc fields, and build up N correlated subqueries where N is the upper bound on the number of events you expect any item to have, ie... (+lat1:[x TO y] +lon1:[w TO z] +time1:[a TO b]) OR (+lat2:[x TO y] +lon2:[w TO z] +time2:[a TO b]) OR (+lat3:[x TO y] +lon3:[w TO z] +time3:[a TO b]) ... -Hoss
Re: listing/enumerating field information
: - Apply the faceting criteria (e.g. facet.zeros, though facet.mincount : would have been a more flexible option in all cases) you know what's *really* anoying? .. that my girlfriend lives 3 timezones away. you know what's *slightly* anoying? .. writing code that seems really generic and reusable, and then having someone point out months later that a numeric "minimum" argument is a billion times more generic and reusable then a boolean argument that means "ignore zero" -- and realizing that the numeric argument could have been done in the same amount of code. :) Nice catch! -Hoss
Re: listing/enumerating field information
On 1/14/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: you know what's *really* anoying? .. that my girlfriend lives 3 timezones away. OTOH I'm sure this factors into the extra time you can spend on Solr, for which I'm sure many around here are glad :-) -Yonik
Re: listing/enumerating field information
Hoss, I'm delighted to have annoyed you, if only *slightly*! ;-) - J.J. PS: +1 on Yonik's subsequent comment. At 8:04 PM -0800 1/14/07, Chris Hostetter wrote: >: - Apply the faceting criteria (e.g. facet.zeros, though facet.mincount >: would have been a more flexible option in all cases) > >you know what's *really* anoying? .. that my girlfriend lives 3 timezones >away. > >you know what's *slightly* anoying? .. writing code that seems really >generic and reusable, and then having someone point out months later that >a numeric "minimum" argument is a billion times more generic and reusable >then a boolean argument that means "ignore zero" -- and realizing that >the numeric argument could have been done in the same amount of code. > > :) > >Nice catch! > > >-Hoss
