Jim Adams wrote:
True, which is what I'll probably do, but is there any way to do this using
'string'? Actually I have even seen this with date fields, which seems very
odd (more data being returned than I expected).
If you want to stick with string, index "011" instead of "11".
Koji
Thank you very much! Your suggestion helps me a lot. After adding the
copyField, solr need to be re-indexed.
Here is another problem. I have a links_no field in solr index which means
how many download links this song has. I want to integrate the text
relevance with the links_no. ie:
mp3^5 artist
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:20 PM, fei dong wrote:
> Thank you very much! Your suggestion helps me a lot. After adding the
> copyField, solr need to be re-indexed.
>
> Here is another problem. I have a links_no field in solr index which means
> how many download links this song has. I want to integ
Hi,I'm following the recipe here:
http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrRelevancyFAQ#head-b1b1cdedcb9cd9bfd9c994709b4d7e540359b1fdfor
boosting recent documents: bf=recip(rord(date_added),1,1000,1000)
On some of my servers I've started getting errors like this:
SEVERE: java.lang.RuntimeException: there
Why is this?
Thanks.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Koji Sekiguchi wrote:
> Jim Adams wrote:
>
>> True, which is what I'll probably do, but is there any way to do this
>> using
>> 'string'? Actually I have even seen this with date fields, which seems
>> very
>> odd (more data being returned
Because the lucene term ordering is lexicographic,
if you index strings "11", "100", and "150",
the terms in the index "100","11","150" in this order.
Koji
Jim Adams wrote:
Why is this?
Thanks.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Koji Sekiguchi wrote:
Jim Adams wrote:
True, which
