bq. multiple fields acts as a MV field No, the idea is that you have N single valued fields, one for each of the MV entries you have. The copyField dest would be MV, and only used in those cases you wanted to match across values. Not saying that's a great solution, or if it would even necessarily work but thought it worth mentioning.
Best, Erick On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:14 PM Nicolas Paris <nicolas.pa...@riseup.net> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 09:30:33AM -0800, Erick Erickson wrote: > > Have you looked at ComplexPhraseQueryParser here? > > https://lucene.apache.org/solr/guide/6_6/other-parsers.html > > Sure. However, I am using multi-word synonyms and so far the > complexphrase does not handle them. (maybe soon ?) > > > Depending on how many of these you have, you could do something with > > dynamic fields. Rather than use a single MV field, use N fields. You'd > > probably have to copyField or some such to a catch-all field for > > searches that you wanted to ignore the "mv nature" of the field. > > Problem with copyField from multiple fields acts as a MV field. So the > problem remains: dealing with MV fields. Isn't ? > > Thanks > > -- > nicolas
