Hi Otis, Thanks for the response. So just to make sure I understand clearly, so I would store a location field of either text or ngram fields of the format "San Francisco, California, United States" and use full text search against that so someone could search for San Francisco or California and get that hit? I've also added some code in the application level so that if someone searches for CA, it gets expanded to California during search time, would it be better to store this in the doc directly or keep it in application code?
Jason On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Otis Gospodnetic < otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Jason, > > That sounds pretty simple and works well if you plan on allowing > fielded/structured search. > If not, you could alternatively stick all geo values in a single text field > and avoid dealing with multiple fields. > > You may also want to use ngram fields instead of text if you want to still > match that San Fransisco oops typo. > > Otis > ---- > Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch > Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jason Toy <jason...@gmail.com> > > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > > Cc: > > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 11:27 AM > > Subject: what is the recommended way to store locations? > > > > In our current system ,we have 3 fields for location, city, state, and > > country. People in our system search for one of those 3 strings. > > So a user can search for "San Francisco" or "California". > > In solr I store > > those 3 fields as strings and when a search happens I search with an OR > > statement across those 3 fields. > > > > Is there a more efficient way to store this data storage wise and/or > speed > > wise? We don't currently plan to use any spacial features like "3 > > miles > > near SF". > > > -- - sent from my mobile 6176064373
