Thankyou for the responses :) Found that the bug was in naming convention of fields. (for tlong/long ) I had given a number character as a name of the field. Studyid field name was - 450 , Changed it to S450 and it started working :)
Thank you all. Regards, Rajani On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Michael Kuhlmann <k...@solarier.de> wrote: > Hi, > > Am 15.11.2011 10:25, schrieb rajini maski: > > <fieldType name="long" class="solr.TrieLongField" precisionStep="0" >> omitNorms="true" positionIncrementGap="0"/> >> > > [...] > > > <fieldType name="tlong" class="solr.TrieLongField" precisionStep="8" >> omitNorms="true" positionIncrementGap="0"/> >> > > [...] > > > <field name="studyid" type="long" indexed="true" stored="true"/> >> > > Hmh, why didn't you just changed the field type to tlong as you mentioned > before? Instead you changed the class of the long type. There's nothing > against this, it's just a bit confusing since long fields normally are of > type solr.LongField, which is not sortable on its own. > > You specified a precisionStep of 0, which means that the field would be > slow in range queries, but it shouldn't harm for sorting. All in all, it > should work. > > So, the only chance I see is to re-index once again (and commit after > that). I don't really see an error in your config except the confusing > "long" type. It should work after reindexing, and it can't work if it was > indexed with a genuine long type. > > -Kuli >
