On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 07:17:43PM +0100, me said:
> It was just an idea though and I was hoping that there would be a
> simpler more orthodox way of doing it.
In the end, for anyone who cares, we used dynamic fields.
There are a lot of them but we haven't seen performance impacted that
badly s
On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 06:31:19PM -0400, Erick Erickson said:
> I'm confused. What do you mean that a user can "set any
> number of arbitrarily named fields on a document". It sounds
> like you are talking about a user adding arbitrarily may entries
> to a multi-valued field? Or is it some kind of
I'm confused. What do you mean that a user can "set any
number of arbitrarily named fields on a document". It sounds
like you are talking about a user adding arbitrarily may entries
to a multi-valued field? Or is it some kind of key:value pairs
in a field in your schema?
Under any circumstances, s
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 04:56:38PM -0700, kenf_nc said:
>
> What behavior are you trying to see? You are allowed to sort on fields that
> are potentially empty, they just sort to the top or bottom depending on your
> sort order. Now, if you Query on the fields that could be empty, you won't
> see
u can sort on
whatever field you want whether the document has that field or not.
Or am I reading your question incorrectly?
--
View this message in context:
http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/Sorting-on-arbitary-custom-fields-tp1668114p1668364.html
Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archi
We have a set of documents - which have a standard set of fields.
However they can also have an arbitary number of custom fields which may
each have a value. So some docs may look like
id: 1
title: Document 1
created: 2010-10-09 15:23:00
custom_fields:
- foo : 5
- bar : 6
id: 2
titl
