> > The error is thrown by Lucene. Actually, multi valued fields are not very > different from tokenized fields. Multiple values are indexed with their > respective token positions differing by the positionIncrementGap value as > specified in schema. >
I truly understand that. But I guess, that is where solr comes in. The schema definition can be used to convert the message into a more relevant one. A proper error message might have done the good here and conveyed the "reality" to end user. Cheers Avlesh On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Shalin Shekhar Mangar < shalinman...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Avlesh Singh <avl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > However the RuntimeException that Solr throws has a misleading error > > message > > - "... but it's impossible to sort on tokenized fields". The field in > this > > case is untokenized. > > > > The error is thrown by Lucene. Actually, multi valued fields are not very > different from tokenized fields. Multiple values are indexed with their > respective token positions differing by the positionIncrementGap value as > specified in schema. The same is done for tokenized fields but the > difference in positions of the tokens depends on the analysis chain. > > -- > Regards, > Shalin Shekhar Mangar. >
