I see you have the exact same requirements I did and have also hit the
same problem I did a month-or-so ago. I ended up writing a custom
field type based on solr.schema.PointType and making some very minor
modifications to one of the Solr classes (AbstractSubfieldType) to
allow the field a certain degree of repeatability without affecting
existing functionality.
I offered my modifications to the list but no-one seemed interested.
Let me know if you want the code and a walkthrough of what it does.
Mark
On 7 Aug 2010, at 3:36 am, Lance Norskog wrote:
Use OR between multiple ranges.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Thomas Joiner <thomas.b.joi...@gmail.com
> wrote:
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
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
