Ok. I got your point. So I need not require ID field in the second view. I will hence remove required="true" in schema.xml. What I thought was unique ID makes indexing easier or used to maintain doc.
Thanks a lot. -----Original Message----- From: Aleksander M. Stensby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:36 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Unique id Well, In that case, what do you want to search for? If I were you, I would make my index consist of tasks (and I assume that is what you are trying to do). So why don't you just use your schema.xml as you have right now, and do the following: Pick a person (let's say he has person_id=42 and deptId=3), get his queue of tasks, then for each task in queue do: insert into index: (id from the task), (name of the task), (id of the person), (id of the departement) an example: 3, "this is a very important task", 42, 3 4, "this one is also important", 42, 3 5, "this one is low priority", 42, 3 And then for the next person you do the same, (person_id=58 and deptId=5) insert: 6, "this is about solr", 58, 5 7, "this is about lucene", 58, 5 etc. Now you can search for all tasks in departement 5 by doing "deptId:5". If you want to search for all the tasks assigned to a specific person you just enter the query "personId:42". And you could also search for all tasks containing certain keywords by doing the query "name:solr" OR "name:lucene". Do you understand now, or is it still unclear? - Aleks On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:56:38 +0100, Raghunandan Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok. There is common column in two views called queueId. I query second > view first and get all the queueids for a person. And having queueIds I > get all the ids from first view. > > Sorry for missing that column earlier. I think it should make sense now. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aleksander M. Stensby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 3:18 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Unique id > > And in case that wasn't clear, the reason for it failing then would > obviously be because you define the id field with required="true", and > you > try inserting a document where this field is missing... > > - Aleks > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:46:10 +0100, Aleksander M. Stensby > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ok, this brings me to the question; how are the two view's connected > to >> each other (since you are indexing partly view 1 and partly view 2 > into >> a single index structure? >> >> If they are not at all connected I believe you have made a fundamental > >> mistake / misunderstand the use of your index... >> I assume that a Task can be assigned to a person, and your Team view >> displays that person, right? >> >> Maybe you are doing something like this: >> View 1 >> 1, somename, sometimestamp, someothertimestamp >> 2, someothername, somethirdtimestamp, timetamp4 >> ... >> >> View 2 >> 1, 58, 0 >> 2, 58, 1 >> 3, 52, 0 >> ... >> >> I'm really confused about your database structure... >> To me, It would be logical to add a team_id field to the team table, > and >> add a third table to link tasks to a team (or to individual persons). >> Once you have that information (because I do assume there MUST be some > >> link there) you would do: >> insert into your index: >> (id from the task), (name of the task), (id of the person assigned > to >> this task), (id of the departement that this person works in). >> >> I guess that you _might_ be thinking a bit wrong and trying to do >> something like this: >> Treat each view as independent views, and inserting values from each >> table as separate documents in the index >> so you would do: >> insert into your index: >> (id from the task), (name of the task), (no value), (no value) ---- > >> which will be ok to do >> (no value), (no value), (id of the person), (id of the departement) > >> --- which makes no sense to me... >> >> So, can you clearify the relationship between the two views, and how > you >> are thinking of inserting entries into your index? >> >> - Aleks >> >> >> >> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:33:28 +0100, Raghunandan Rao >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> View structure is: >>> >>> 1. >>> Task(id* (int), name (string), start (timestamp), end (timestamp)) >>> >>> 2. >>> Team(person_id (int), deptId (int), isManager (int)) >>> >>> * is primary key >>> >>> In schema.xml I have >>> >>> <field name="id" type="integer" indexed="true" stored="true" >>> required="true"/> >>> <field name="name" type="text" indexed="true" stored="true"/> >>> <field name="personId" type="integer" indexed="true" stored="true"/> >>> <field name=" deptId" type="integer" indexed="true" stored="true"/> >>> >>> <uniqueKey>id</uniqueKey> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Aleksander M. Stensby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 2:56 PM >>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Unique id >>> >>> Hello again. I'm getting a bit confused by your questions, and I > believe >>> >>> it would be easier for us to help you if you could post the field >>> definitions from your schema.xml and the structure of your two > database >>> >>> views. >>> ie. >>> table 1: (id (int), subject (string) -.--) >>> table 2: (category (string), other fields ..) >>> >>> >>> So please post this and we can try to help you. >>> >>> - Aleks >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:49:31 +0100, Raghunandan Rao >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Erik. >>>> If I convert that to a string then id field defined in schema.xml >>> would >>>> fail as I have that as integer. If I change that to string then > first >>>> view would fail as it is Integer there. What to do in such > scenarios? >>> Do >>>> I need to define multiple schema.xml or multiple unique key >>> definitions >>>> in same schema. How does this work? Pls explain. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 6:40 PM >>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: Unique id >>>> >>>> I'd suggest aggregating those three columns into a string that can >>>> serve as the Solr uniqueKey field value. >>>> >>>> Erik >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 20, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Raghunandan Rao wrote: >>>> >>>>> Basically, I am working on two views. First one has an ID column. > The >>>>> second view has no unique ID column. What to do in such situations? >>>>> There are 3 other columns where I can make a composite key out of >>>>> those. >>>>> I have to index these two views now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:24 PM >>>>> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org >>>>> Subject: Re: Unique id >>>>> >>>>> Technically, no, a uniqueKey field is NOT required. I've yet to > run >>>>> into a situation where it made sense not to use one though. >>>>> >>>>> As for indexing database tables - if one of your tables doesn't > have >>> a >>>>> primary key, does it have an aggregate unique "key" of some sort? > Do >>>>> you plan on updating the rows in that table and reindexing them? >>>>> Seems like some kind of unique key would make sense for updating >>>>> documents. >>>>> >>>>> But yeah, a more detailed description of your table structure and >>>>> searching needs would be helpful. >>>>> >>>>> Erik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 19, 2008, at 5:18 AM, Aleksander M. Stensby wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yes it is. You need a unique id because the add method works as > and >>>>>> "add or update" method. When adding a document whose ID is already >>>>>> found in the index, the old document will be deleted and the new >>>>>> will be added. Are you indexing two tables into the same index? Or >>>>>> does one entry in the index consist of data from both tables? How >>>>>> are these linked together without an ID? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Aleksander >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:42:00 +0100, Raghunandan Rao >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is the uniqueKey in schema.xml really required? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reason is, I am indexing two tables and I have id as unique key > in >>>>>>> schema.xml but id field is not there in one of the tables and >>>>>>> indexing >>>>>>> fails. Do I really require this unique field for Solr to index it >>>>>>> better >>>>>>> or can I do away with this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rahgu >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Aleksander M. Stensby >>>>>> Senior software developer >>>>>> Integrasco A/S >>>>>> www.integrasco.no >>>> >>> >> >
