On 13.08.2011 21:28 Erick Erickson wrote:
> Fair enough, but what's "first value in the list"?
> There's nothing special about "mutliValued" fields,
> that is where the schema has "multiValued=true".
> under the covers, this is no different than just
> concatenating all the values together and put
Fair enough, but what's "first value in the list"?
There's nothing special about "mutliValued" fields,
that is where the schema has "multiValued=true".
under the covers, this is no different than just
concatenating all the values together and putting them
in at one go, except for some games with th
On 13.08.2011 20:31 Martijn v Groningen wrote:
> The first solution would make sense to me. Some kind of a strategy
> mechanism
> for this would allow anyone to define their own rules. Duplicating results
> would be confusing to me.
That is why I would only activate it on request (setting a speci
I have a different use case. Consider a spatial multivalued field with latlong
values for addresses. I would want sort by geodist() to return the closest
distance in each group. For example find me the closest restaurant which each
doc being a chain name like pizza hut. Or doctors with multiple
The first solution would make sense to me. Some kind of a strategy
mechanism
for this would allow anyone to define their own rules. Duplicating results
would be confusing to me.
On 13 August 2011 18:39, Michael Lackhoff wrote:
> On 13.08.2011 18:03 Erick Erickson wrote:
>
> > The problem I've al
On 13.08.2011 18:03 Erick Erickson wrote:
> The problem I've always had is that I don't quite know what
> "sorting on multivalued fields" means. If your field had tokens
> a and z, would sorting on that field put the doc
> at the beginning or end of the list? Sure, you can define
> rules (
>> this
>> > latest version sorting is not working on multivauled field.
>> >
>> > So I am in unable to upgrade my SOLR due to this drawback.
>> >
>> > Is there a work around available to fix this problem?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Johnny
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-3-3-0-multivalued-field-sort-problem-tp3248778p3248778.html
>> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groet,
>
> Martijn van Groningen
>
So I am in unable to upgrade my SOLR due to this drawback.
> >
> > Is there a work around available to fix this problem?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Johnny
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-3-3-0-multivalued-field-sort-problem-tp3248778p3248778.html
> > Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
>
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Martijn van Groningen
rawback.
>
> Is there a work around available to fix this problem?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Johnny
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-3-3-0-multivalued-field-sort-problem-tp3248778p3248778.html
> Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
ack.
Is there a work around available to fix this problem?
Thanks,
Johnny
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/SOLR-3-3-0-multivalued-field-sort-problem-tp3248778p3248778.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
field (via copyField, perhaps).
> > >
> > > Brad
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Salman Akram [mailto:salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net]
> > > Sent: January-17-11 5:47 AM
> > &g
s you
> > happen to already have such a field (via copyField, perhaps).
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Salman Akram [mailto:salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net]
> > Sent: January-17-11 5:47 AM
> > To: s
ll probably have to re-index your data, unless you
> happen to already have such a field (via copyField, perhaps).
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Salman Akram [mailto:salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net]
> Sent: January-17-11 5:47 AM
> To: solr-
lman Akram [mailto:salman.ak...@northbaysolutions.net]
Sent: January-17-11 5:47 AM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: sort problem
Yes.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Philippe VINCENT-ROYOL <
vincent.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 17/01/11 10:32, Grijesh a écrit :
>
>
Yes.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Philippe VINCENT-ROYOL <
vincent.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 17/01/11 10:32, Grijesh a écrit :
>
> Use Lowercase filter to lowering your data at both index time and search
>> time
>> it will make case insensitive
>>
>> -
>> Thanx:
>> Grijesh
>>
> Thanks
Le 17/01/11 10:32, Grijesh a écrit :
Use Lowercase filter to lowering your data at both index time and search time
it will make case insensitive
-
Thanx:
Grijesh
Thanks,
so tell me if i m wrong... i need to modify my schema.xml to add
lowercase filter and reindex my content?
Use Lowercase filter to lowering your data at both index time and search time
it will make case insensitive
-
Thanx:
Grijesh
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/sort-problem-tp2271207p2271231.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi guys,
I use solr with utf8 charset and i've a sort problem. For example, i
make a sort on a name field.. results looks like:
Article
Banana
Foo
aviation
brunch
...
So my question is, how to force solr to ignore case in result ? I would
like to have result as:
Article
aviation
B
Thanks Yonik,
I was using example schema.xml, in that alphaOnlySort FieldType contains
following analyzer.
Due to last filter class, I could not sort any field other than alphabets.
I removed that, it is
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Mahesh Udupa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Yonik,
>
> It works fine. But sort is *case sensitive. *
> And also,
> If my String contains some white space(or - or any other special char) then
> failed to sort, with following error.
>
> INFO: /select/
> ver
Thanks Yonik,
It works fine. But sort is *case sensitive. *
And also,
If my String contains some white space(or - or any other special char) then
failed to sort, with following error.
INFO: /select/
version=2.2&rows=20&fl=rcid,status,categoryid,cmprice_value,cmprice_model,cmprice_noofdays,cmpric
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Mahesh Udupa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even I tried with *text* Field type. But no use.
> As splitOnCaseChange="1", do we have splitOnLetterToNumberChange or
> something like that?
Sorting requires a single token in the field (you want to sort on the
whole
Thanks Erick for your quick response.
Even I tried with *text* Field type. But no use.
As splitOnCaseChange="1", do we have splitOnLetterToNumberChange or
something like that?
Thanks in advance
kmu
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Erick Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I admit I know l
I admit I know little about SOLR, but wouldn't an AlphaOnlySorter ignore
the digits?
Erick
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Mahesh Udupa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have following entry in my title list:
>
> Content1
> Content2
> Content3
> Content4
> Content5
>
> If I try to Sort
Hello,
I have following entry in my title list:
Content1
Content2
Content3
Content4
Content5
If I try to Sort it in ascending or descending order, I am getting same
order.
I am using following alphaOnlySort field and text.
Please let me know if I miss anything here.
Thanks in advance for looki
On 9/3/07, Marcus Stratmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you could live with a cap of 2B on message id, switching to type
> > "int" would decrease the memory usage to 4 bytes per doc (presumably
> > you don't need range queries?)
>
> I haven't found exact definitions of the fieldTypes anywhere
If you could live with a cap of 2B on message id, switching to type
"int" would decrease the memory usage to 4 bytes per doc (presumably
you don't need range queries?)
I haven't found exact definitions of the fieldTypes anywhere. Does
"integer" span the common range from -2^31 to 2^31-1?
And t
I'll try switching to int. Thanks.
Yonik Seeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/2/07, michael ravits wrote:
> this is the field definition:
>
>
> holds message id's, values range from 0 to 127132531
> can I disable this cache?
No, sorting wouldn't work without it.
The cache structure certai
On 9/2/07, michael ravits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is the field definition:
> required="true" />
>
> holds message id's, values range from 0 to 127132531
> can I disable this cache?
No, sorting wouldn't work without it.
The cache structure certainly isn't optimal for this (every doc
hello mike,
this is the field definition:
holds message id's, values range from 0 to 127132531
can I disable this cache?
Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 28-Aug-07, at 6:19 AM, michael ravits
wrote:
> hello solrs,
>
> i have an index with 30M records, weights ~50GB. latest trunk
On 28-Aug-07, at 6:19 AM, michael ravits wrote:
hello solrs,
i have an index with 30M records, weights ~50GB. latest trunk
version. heap size 1024mb.
queries work fine until I specify a field to sort results by. even
if the result set consists of only 2 documents, the CPU jumps high
and
hello solrs,
i have an index with 30M records, weights ~50GB. latest trunk version. heap
size 1024mb.
queries work fine until I specify a field to sort results by. even if the
result set consists of only 2 documents, the CPU jumps high and after about 5
minutes I get the following exception:
: I have read that the default sorting is by the "score desc".
: However when I ran the query, I get some erroneous results.
:
: This is the query I ran:
:
: solr include_in_directory_p:t AND active_p:t AND (in_shelves:(0777,1)^100
: OR in_groups:(02343^50 02345^30 abc xyz)); score desc
what vers
Hi,
I am new to using SOLR.
I have read that the default sorting is by the "score desc".
However when I ran the query, I get some erroneous results.
This is the query I ran:
solr include_in_directory_p:t AND active_p:t AND (in_shelves:(0777,1)^100
OR in_groups:(02343^50 02345^30 abc xyz)); scor
34 matches
Mail list logo
