hmm, sorry about that. I haven't used the 'sort by functionquery'-option myself, but I remembered it existed. Indeed solr 1.5 was never released (as you've read in the link you pointed out)
the relevant JIRA-issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1297 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1297>There's some recent activity and a final post suggesting the patch works. (assumingly under either 3.1 and/or 4.x) Both branches are not released at the moment though, although 3.1 should be pretty close (and perhaps stable enough) . I'm just not sure. Your best bet is to start a new thread asking at what branch to patch SOLR-1297 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1297> and asking the subjective 'is it stable enough?'. Hope that helps some, Geert-Jan 2010/11/24 Robert Gründler <rob...@dubture.com> > thanks a lot for the explanation. i'm a little confused about solr 1.5, > especially > after finding this wiki page: > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/Solr1.5 > > Is there a stable build available for version 1.5, so i can test your > suggestion > using functionquery? > > > -robert > > > > On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Geert-Jan Brits wrote: > > > You could do it with sorting on a functionquery (which is supported from > > solr 1.5) > > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#Sort_By_Function > > <http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FunctionQuery#Sort_By_Function> > > Consider the search: > > http://localhost:8093/solr/select?author:'j.k.rowling' > > > > sorting like you specified would involve: > > > > 1. introducing an extra field: 'author_exact' of type 'string' which > takes > > care of the exact matching. (You can populate it by defining it as a > > copyfield of Author so your indexing-code doesn't change) > > 2. set sortMissingLast="true" for 'num_copies' and 'num_comments' > > like: <fieldType > > name="num_copies" sorMissingLast="true".... > > > > > this makes sure that documents which don't have the value set end up at > the > > end of the sort when sorted on that particular field. > > > > 3. construct a functionquery that scores either 0 (no match) or x (not > sure > > what x is (1?) , but it should always be the same for all exact matches ) > > > > This gives > > > > > http://localhost:8093/solr/select?author:'j.k.rowling'&sort=query({!dismaxqf=author_exact > > v='j.k.rowling'}) desc > > > > which scores all exact matches before all partial matches. > > > > 4. now just concatenate the other sorts giving: > > > > > http://localhost:8093/solr/select?author:'j.k.rowling'&sort=query({!dismaxqf=author_exact > > v='j.k.rowling'}) desc, num_copies desc, num_comments desc > > > > That should do it. > > > > Please note that 'num_copies' and 'num_comments' still kick in to break > the > > tie for documents that exactly match on 'author_exact'. I assume this is > > ok. > > > > I can't see a way to do it without functionqueries at the moment, which > > doesn't mean there isn't any. > > > > Hope that helps, > > > > Geert-Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *query({!dismax qf=text v='solr rocks'})* > > * > > * > > > > > > > > > > 2010/11/24 Robert Gründler <rob...@dubture.com> > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> we have a requirement for one of our search results which has a quite > >> complex sorting strategy. Let me explain the document first, using an > >> example: > >> > >> The document is a book. It has several indexed text fields: Title, > Author, > >> Distributor. It has two integer columns, where one reflects the number > of > >> sold copies (num_copies), and the other reflects > >> the number of comments on the website (num_comments). > >> > >> The Requirement for the relevancy looks like this: > >> > >> * Documents which have exact matches in the "Author" field, should be > >> ranked highest, disregarding their values in "num_copies" and > "num_comments" > >> fields > >> * After the exact matches, the sorting should be based on the value in > the > >> field "num_copies", but only for documents, where this field is set > >> * After the num_copies matches, the sorting should be based on > >> "num_comments" > >> > >> I'm wondering is this kind of sort order can be implemented in a single > >> query, or if i need to break it down into several queries and merge the > >> results on application level. > >> > >> -robert > >> > >> > >> > >
