So then you'd be fine. You get the document back and iterate over both
multivalued fields in parallel. Insertion order is the same as
retrieval order. Unless you forget to stick an empty value in for a
null or something like that, you're golden.
Michael Della Bitta
---
Danny,
You don't lose their relations with parallel arrays, it's just that
you can't *query* those relations. So for example, if you query: one:1
AND two:2, you'll get documents where both those values are set, but
not ones where both of those values are *paired*.
Michael Della Bitta
---
Erick : you're right, allowing nested arrays would be like opening Pandora's
Box :)
Michaël : having parallel arrays and losing their relations is what I want
to avoid, actually :)
I guess I'll have to find another way.
Thanks,
Danny.
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3
If you don't need to query based on correlations between associated
values, you can store parallel arrays in separate fields in Solr and
get them back in insertion order. So like this:
https://gist.github.com/mdellabitta/4996336
Michael Della Bitta
---
This isn't possible that I know of, and I'm skeptical that it would be
embraced. The problem here is that this would break the current format
pretty severely I think, making back-compat a pain. And then there would be
the arrays-of-arrays-of-arrays, and supporting N-dimensional arrays seems
like a
Ok :)
I'm wondering if it is possible to have arrays of arrays in the response
structure.
For example, I can use DataImportHandler to index this XML file :
http://pastebin.com/j2s3iVmk
into this structure :
http://pastebin.com/MJ7YYh0L
But as you can see, in this index I lost the links between
None of your additions came through my e-mail client, can you put them
somewhere (maybe paste bin?) and provide a link?
Best
Erick
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Danny wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering if it is possible to have arrays of arrays in the response
> structure.
>
> For example, I
