*Sigh*...I had thought maybe reversing it would work, but that would require creating a whole new index, on a separate core, as the existing index is used for other purposes. Plus, given the volume of data, that would be a big deal, update-wise. What would be better would be to remove that particular sort option-button on the webpage. ;)
I'll create a Jira issue, but in the meanwhile I'll have to come up with something else. I guess I didn't realize how much of a "corner case" this problem is. :) Thanks for the suggestions! Ron -----Original Message----- From: Smiley, David W. [mailto:dsmi...@mitre.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:26 AM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: Strategies for sorting by array, when you can't sort by array? Hi Ron. This is an interesting problem you have. One idea would be to create an index with the entity relationship going in the other direction. So instead of one to many, go many to one. You would end up with multiple documents with varying names but repeated parent entity information -- perhaps simply using just an ID which is used as a lookup. Do a search on this name field, sorting by a non-tokenized variant of the name field. Use Result-Grouping to consolidate multiple matches of a name to the same parent document. This whole idea might very well be academic since duplicating all the parent entity information for searching on that too might be a bit much than you care to bother with. And I don't think Solr 4's join feature addresses this use case. In the end, I think Solr could be modified to support this, with some work. It would make a good feature request in JIRA. ~ David Smiley On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Olson, Ron wrote: > Hi all- > > Well, this is a problem. I have a list of names as a multi-valued field and I > am searching on this field and need to return the results sorted. I know from > searching and reading the documentation (and getting the error) that sorting > on a multi-valued field isn't possible. Okay, so, what I haven't found is any > real good solution/workaround to the problem. I was wondering what strategies > others have done to overcome this particular situation; collapsing the > individual names into a single field with copyField doesn't work because the > name searched may not be the first name in the field. > > Thanks for any hints/tips/tricks. > > Ron > > DISCLAIMER: This electronic message, including any attachments, files or > documents, is intended only for the addressee and may contain CONFIDENTIAL, > PROPRIETARY or LEGALLY PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, copying or > distribution of this message or any of the information included in or with it > is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this message > in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and > permanently delete and destroy this message and its attachments, along with > any copies thereof. This message does not create any contractual obligation > on behalf of the sender or Law Bulletin Publishing Company. > Thank you. DISCLAIMER: This electronic message, including any attachments, files or documents, is intended only for the addressee and may contain CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY or LEGALLY PRIVILEGED information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message or any of the information included in or with it is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete and destroy this message and its attachments, along with any copies thereof. This message does not create any contractual obligation on behalf of the sender or Law Bulletin Publishing Company. Thank you.
