Does the standard debug component (?debugQuery=on) give you what you need? http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrRelevancyFAQ#Why_does_id:archangel_come_before_id:hawkgirl_when_querying_for_.22wings.22
- Jon On May 14, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Tim Garton wrote: > All, > I've searched around for help with something we are trying to do > and haven't come across much. We are running solr 1.4. Here is a > summary of the issue we are facing: > > A simplified example of our schema is something like this: > > <field name="id" type="string" indexed="true" stored="true" required="true" > /> > <field name="title" type="text" indexed="true" stored="true" > required="true" /> > <field name="date_posted" type="tdate" indexed="true" stored="true" /> > <field name="supplement_title" type="text" indexed="true" > stored="true" multiValued="true" /> > <field name="supplement_pdf_url" type="text" indexed="true" > stored="true" multiValued="true" /> > <field name="supplement_pdf_text" type="text" indexed="true" > stored="true" multiValued="true" /> > > When someone does a search we search across the title, > supplement_title, and supplement_pdf_text fields. When we get our > results, we would like to be able to tell which field the search > matched and if it's a multiValued field, which of the multiple values > matched. This is so that we can display results similar to: > > Example Title > Example Supplement Title > Example Supplement Title 2 (your search matched this document) > Example Supplement Title 3 > > Example Title 2 > Example Supplement Title 4 > Example Supplement Title 5 > Example Supplement Title 6 (your search matched this document) > > etc. > > How would you recommend doing this? Is there some way to get solr to > tell us which field matched, including multiValued fields? As a > workaround we have been using highlighting to tell which field > matched, but it doesn't get us what we want for multiValued fields and > there is a significant cost to enabling the highlighting. Should we > design our schema in some other fashion to achieve these results? > Thanks. > > -Tim
