Yes, sounds right. 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; Otis Gospodnetic <otis_gospodne...@yahoo.com> > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2011 12:01 PM > Subject: Re: what is the recommended way to store locations? > > 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 >
