RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2011-04-08 Thread wojtekpia
Hi Hoss, I realize I'm reviving a really old thread, but I have the same need, and SpanNumericRangeQuery sounds like a good solution for me. Can you give me some guidance on how to implement that? Thanks, Wojtek -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/One-item-multip

RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-30 Thread Chris Hostetter
: parallel arrays, one array per address-part field. The parallel array : alignment is effected via alignment of position increments. What's : missing from Solr/Lucene is the ability to constrain matches such that : the position increment of all matching address-part fields is the same. It e

RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-29 Thread Steven A Rowe
Hi David, On 03/29/2010 at 4:54 PM, David Smiley (@MITRE.org) wrote: > Did you read my original message where I suggested perhaps a solution > might lie in intersecting different queries based on common multi-value > field offsets derived from matching term positions? I have no idea how > far off

RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-29 Thread David Smiley (@MITRE.org)
-1863547009-13...@n3.nabble.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:29 PM To: Smiley, David W. Subject: RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries Hi David, On 03/29/2010 at 3:36 PM, David Smiley (@MITRE.org) wrote: > I'm not sure what to make of "or index using a heterogeneous field >

RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-29 Thread Steven A Rowe
Hi David, On 03/29/2010 at 3:36 PM, David Smiley (@MITRE.org) wrote: > I'm not sure what to make of "or index using a heterogeneous field > schema, grouping the different doc type instances with a unique key > (the one) to form a composite doc" Lucene is schema-free - you can mix and match differ

RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-29 Thread David Smiley (@MITRE.org)
I'm not going to index each address as its own document because the "one-side" that I have currently has loads of text and there are many addresses. Furthermore, it doesn't really address the general case of my problem statement. I'm not sure what to make of "or index using a heterogeneous field

RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-29 Thread Steven A Rowe
David, The standard one-to-many solution is indexing each address (the many) as its own document, and then either copy the other fields from your current schema to these documents, or index using a heterogeneous field schema, grouping the different doc type instances with a unique key (the one)

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-29 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
On 29.03.2010, at 15:11, David Smiley (@MITRE.org) wrote: > > Sorry, I intended to design my post so that one wouldn't have to read the > thread for context but it seems I failed to do that. Don't bother reading > the thread. The use-case I'm pondering modifying Lucene/Solr to solve is > the o

RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-29 Thread David Smiley (@MITRE.org)
Sorry, I intended to design my post so that one wouldn't have to read the thread for context but it seems I failed to do that. Don't bother reading the thread. The use-case I'm pondering modifying Lucene/Solr to solve is the one-to-many problem. Imagine a document that contains multiple address

RE: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-28 Thread Steven A Rowe
TRE.org) [mailto:dsmi...@mitre.org] > Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 6:01 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries > > > It's been three years since this discussion and I'm unaware of any work > that > has plug

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2010-03-28 Thread David Smiley (@MITRE.org)
It's been three years since this discussion and I'm unaware of any work that has plugged this capability gap in Lucene/Solr. In summary, it would be very, *very*, useful to be able to query multiple multi-valued fields and require that such matches occur at the same index offset. I'm working on

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-18 Thread Chris Hostetter
: Now I follow. I was misreading the first comments, thinking that the field : content would be deconstructed to smaller components or pieces. Too much : (or not enough) coffee. that's my bad .. i was trying to explain the concept by simplifying the numeric range part out of the discussion and

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-17 Thread Jeff Rodenburg
Now I follow. I was misreading the first comments, thinking that the field content would be deconstructed to smaller components or pieces. Too much (or not enough) coffee. I'm expecting the index doc needs to be constructed with lat/long/dates in sequential order, i.e.: 123 32.123456

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-17 Thread Chris Hostetter
: OK, you lost me. It sounds as if this PhraseQuery-ish approach involves : breaking datetime and lat/long values into pieces, and evaluation occurs : with positioning. Is that accurate? i'm not sure what you mean by pieces ... the idea is that you would have a single "latitude" field and a sin

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-16 Thread Jeff Rodenburg
Yonik/Hoss - OK, you lost me. It sounds as if this PhraseQuery-ish approach involves breaking datetime and lat/long values into pieces, and evaluation occurs with positioning. Is that accurate? On 1/16/07, Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1/15/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-16 Thread Yonik Seeley
On 1/15/07, Chris Hostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: PhraseQuery artificially enforces that the Terms you add to it are in the same field ... you could easily write a PhraseQuery-ish query that takes Terms from differnet fields, and ensures that they appear "near" eachother in terms of their to

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-15 Thread Chris Hostetter
: I've not yet used dynamic fields in this manner. With that number range, : what limitations could I encounter? Given the size of that, I would need very little, yonik recently listed the "costs" of dynamic fields... http://www.nabble.com/Searching-multiple-indices-%28solr-newbie%29-tf2903899.

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-15 Thread Jeff Rodenburg
Thanks Hoss. Interesting approach, but the "N" bound could be well in the hundreds, and the N bound would be variable (some maximum number, but different across events.) I've not yet used dynamic fields in this manner. With that number range, what limitations could I encounter? Given the size

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-14 Thread Chris Hostetter
: 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 bou

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-13 Thread Jeff Rodenburg
Thanks Yonik. 1) model a single document as a single event at a singe place with a start and end date. This was my first approach, but at presentation time I need to display the event once -- with multiple start/end dates and locations beneath it. Is treating the given event uniqueId as a fac

Re: One item, multiple fields, and range queries

2007-01-12 Thread Yonik Seeley
On 1/12/07, Jeff Rodenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm stuck with a query issue that at present seems unresolvable. Hoping the community has some insight to this. My index contains events that have multiple beginning/ending date ranges and multiple locations. For example, event A (uniqueId