response <
1s
Hope that helps
-Bharani
Park, Michael wrote:
>
> Thanks! That's a good suggestion too. I'll look into that.
>
> Actually, I was hoping someone had used a reliable JS library that
> accepted JSON.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan McKin
I am trying my best to figure out the correct way to do this
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=12456399&framed=y
I just came across the collapseFilter ( solr 236). I think i will give that
a try.
Thanks hossman for the reply
Bharani
hossman wrote:
>
>
> : My
Hi,
Is it possible to turn off the "store" option based on field value. I would
like to index and store the primary document but for all revisions i only
need to index it and not store it.
Thanks
Bharani
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Control-index-store-a
copyField extracted from the compound
comp field
Is this possible with solr?
Thanks
Bharani
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Combining-Proximity---Range-search-tf4450179.html#a12696909
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
those
lines too. Any idea how you can do this with out changes to solr?
Thanks
Bharani
Jed Reynolds-2 wrote:
>
> Bharani wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have got two sets of document
>>
>> 1) Primary Document
>> 2) Occurrences of primary document
>>
>&g
Thanks Yonik - I didnt know that before. But i am not sure how i can use the
range queries on this compound field so that i dont get the wrong result.
-Bharani
Yonik Seeley wrote:
>
> You could index both a compound field and the components separately.
> This could be simplified b
with index only and not store i am still have to deal with duplicate hit -
becuase all i want is the primary document
Is there a better approach to the problem?
Thanks
Bharani
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-Values--Structured--tf4370282.html#a12456399
Sent fro