If I understood your question correctly, that's what I am suggesting to try.
Notice that, as I mentioned earlier, that ignores all the complexity
of similarity, ranking, etc that Solr offers. But it does not seem you
need it in your particular case, as you are just searching for
presence/absence o
I see, so basically I add another field to the schema "CustomScore" and
assign score to it based on values in other fields. And then just order by
it.
Is that right?
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Alexandre Rafalovitch
wrote:
> Clarification: In the client that is doing the _indexing_/sendin
Clarification: In the client that is doing the _indexing_/sending data
to Solr. Not the one doing the querying.
And custom URP if you can't change the client and need to inject that
extra code on the Solr side.
Sorry, for extra emails.
Regards,
Alex.
Solr Analyzers, Tokenizers, Filters,
My suggestion was to do the mapping in the client, before you hit
Solr. Or in a custom UpdateRequestProcessor. Because only your client
app knows the order you want those things in. It certainly was not any
kind of alphabetical.
Then, you just sort by that field and Solr would not care about the
c
Search term is searched in Description.
The search string is relevant in the context that the Description of
returned records must contain the search string. But when several records
Description contains the search string then they must be ordered according
to the values in Code and Prefer.
I und
What's the search string? Or is the search string irrelevant and
that's just your compulsory ordering.
Assuming anything that searches has to be returned and has to fit into
that order, I would frankly just map your special codes all together
to some sort of 'sort order' number.
So, Code=>C = 4000
