Did you try exactly what Chris suggested? Appending sort=_docid_ asc to the query? When you say "client" I assume you're talking SolrJ, and I'm pretty sure that SolrQuery.setSortField is what you want.
I suppose you could also set this as the default in your query handler. Best Erick On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:43 AM, jame vaalet <jamevaa...@gmail.com> wrote: > okey, so this is something i was looking for .. the default order of result > docs in lucene\solr .. > and you are right, since i don care about the order in which i get the docs > ideally i shouldn't ask solr to do any sorting on its "raw" result list ... > though i understand your point, how do i do it as solr client ? by default > if am not mentioning the sort parameter in query URL to solr, solr will try > to sort it with respect to the score it calculated .. how do i prevent even > this sorting ..do we have any setting as such in solr for this ? > > > On 23 August 2011 03:29, Chris Hostetter <hossman_luc...@fucit.org> wrote: > >> >> : before going into lucene doc id , i have got creationDate datetime field >> in >> : my index which i can use as page definition using filter query.. >> : i have learned exposing lucene docid wont be a clever idea, as its again >> : relative to index instance.. where as my index date field will be unique >> : ..and i can definitely create ranges with that.. >> >> i think you missunderstood me: i'm *not* suggesting you do any filtering >> on the internal lucene doc id. I am suggesting that you forget all about >> trying to filter to work arround the issues with deep paging, and simply >> *sort* on _docid_ asc, which should make all inherient issues with deep >> paging go away (as far as i know). At no point with the internal lucene >> doc ids be exposed to your client code, it's just a instruction to >> Solr/Lucene that it doesn't really need to do any sorting, it can just >> return the Nth-Mth docs as collected. >> >> : i ahve got on more doubt .. if i use filter query each time will it >> result >> : in memory problem like that we see in deep paging issues.. >> >> it could, i'm not sure. that's why i said... >> >> : > I'm not sure if this would really gain you much though -- yes this >> would >> : > work arround some of the memory issues inherient in "deep paging" but >> it >> : > would still require a lot or rescoring of documents again and again. >> >> >> -Hoss >> > > > > -- > > -JAME >
