This will work for a single range. However, I may need to support multiple
ranges, is there a way to do that?
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Jan Høydahl / Cominvent <
jan....@cominvent.com> wrote:
> Your use case can be solved by splitting the range into two int's:
>
> Document: {title: My document, from: 8000, to: 9000}
> Query: q=title:"My" AND (from:[* TO 8500] AND to:[8500 TO *])
>
> --
> Jan Høydahl, search solution architect
> Cominvent AS - www.cominvent.com
> Training in Europe - www.solrtraining.com
>
> On 6. aug. 2010, at 17.02, Thomas Joiner wrote:
>
> > I need to have a field that supports ranges...for instance, you specify a
> > range of 8000 to 9000 and if you search for 8500, it will hit. However,
> > when googling, I really couldn't find any resources on how to create your
> > own field type in Solr.
> >
> > But from what I was able to find, the AbstractSubTypeFieldType class
> seems
> > like a good starting point for the type that I want to make, however that
> > isn't in the current version of Solr that I am using (1.4.1). So I guess
> my
> > question is: is Solr 3.0 ready for production? If so, how do I get it?
> Do I
> > just need to checkout the code from svn and build it myself? If so
> should I
> > just check out the latest, or is there a particular branch that I should
> go
> > with that is reliable? If I switch to 3.0, will I need to reindex my
> data,
> > or has the data format not changed?
> >
> > And if 3.0 isn't ready for production, what would you suggest I do? Is
> the
> > AbstractSubTypeFieldType such that I can backport it and use it with
> 1.4.1,
> > or does it use specific features of 3.0 that I would have to backport as
> > well, in which case it would become a horribly convoluted mess where I
> would
> > be better off just going with 3.0. And I guess this comes back to help
> on
> > finding resources about implementing custom types...it would just be more
> > complicated if I couldn't use the AbstractSubTypeFieldType.
> >
> > (This is my first time posting to a mailing list, so if I have violated
> > horribly some etiquette of mailing lists, please tell me).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Thomas
>
>
