Why do you need the django_id as a string in the first place? Strings are much less efficient than numeric types in soooo many ways that it seems you'd be better off making it a numeric type..
But the canonical way to do what you want is to just left-pad the string version with zeros, then the numeric and lexical orderings are the same. However, given how sorting works, you'd wind up using _less_ space (I think) having an additional int field and sorting on that than if you tried to use string for sorting and provided a cast capability... FWIW, Erick On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Bharadwaj <barbi.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Schema: > > <field name="id" type="string" indexed="true" stored="true" > multiValued="false" required="true"/> > <field name="django_id" type="string" indexed="true" stored="true" > multiValued="false" /> > > ... > > <field name="game_count" type="sint" indexed="true" stored="true" > multiValued="false" /> > > <field name="address_state" type="text" indexed="true" stored="true" > multiValued="false" /> > > > I am trying to sort all records based on django_id, a string field defined > in the schema. > > Query URL: > http://localhost:8970/solr/core1/select?q=*%3A*&sort=django_id+desc&start=0&rows=10 > > Output: > This gives me the records with django_id sorted as a string. 999, 998 > placed ahead of 1000, since it is alphabetically sorted desc. > > Desired result: > I want to be able to sort by a string field, but treat it as an integer. > The field : django_id > > I tried the following in the sort field and a few other functions: > 1. sum(django_id, 0) desc > 2. abs(django_id) desc > > These functions break because I am trying to perform a numeric operation on > a string field. > I am looking for a type cast function. Is there a way to convert the field > to an integer before sorting? > ideally: > num(django_id) desc or int(django_id) desc > > I am also willing to submit a patch if this is not already present and > feasible to implement. > If type casting fails, default to -1. > > Alternate solution: > I can add a new integer field to the schema and store the same data as an > integer, but prefer to have a function, if possible. > > Thanks, > Bharad
