I have to ask "why can't you just store the second type with the same
field names?" Or do they also have fields A, B and C?
It's possible to store these in separate _collections_, configured as
you see fit and use "collection aliasing" to search them both with a
single query, but that won't solve the naming problem.
Otherwise, your idea of copying them to a common field is probably best,
Best,
Erick
On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Grimes, Kevin M (398F)
<kevin.m.gri...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a unique situation that I’m not quite sure how to approach.
>
> In my current Solr collection, I have documents that look like this:
>
> {
> “fieldA”: 1,
> “fieldB”: 2,
> “fieldC”: 3
> }
>
> We’re adding a new “type” of document, that looks like this:
>
> {
> “fieldD”: 1,
> “fieldE”: 2,
> “fieldF”: 3
> }
>
> The issue is, “fieldA” and “fieldD”, although they have different names,
> store the same sorts of values. In this example, the same is true for B & E,
> C & F.
>
> I want to be able to search, for example, like this: “q=fieldA:1” and have it
> return both the first document and the second one, too, since fields A & D
> are equivalent, and they both store 1. However, I would also like to have a
> query for “q=fieldD:1” return the same response.
>
> Is the best approach to solving this kind of problem to have a third field,
> for example, “fieldG”, and have “fieldA” and “fieldD” copy it? Or is there a
> cleaner solution?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin Grimes
> 398F – Data Product Generation Software
> o: 818-354-0263 c: 818-940-4727
> kevin.m.gri...@jpl.nasa.gov<mailto:kevin.m.gri...@jpl.nasa.gov>
>
