Sorry I tried to explain it too fast. Imagine the usecase that I wrote on the first post.
A document can have more than one 6-Dimensions point. So my first approach was: <doc> <field name="pk">1</field> <field name="docId>10</field> <field name="point>2,2,2,2,2,2</field> </doc> <doc> <field name="pk">2</field> <field name="docId>10</field> <field name="point>3,3,3,3,3,3</field> </doc> <doc> <field name="pk">3</field> <field name="docId>10</field> <field name="point>4,4,4,4,4,4</field> </doc> It works fine and I don't think it gives us bad performance, but there are a lot of redundant data (high disk space cost). That's why I thought about multivalued fields: <doc> <field name="docId">10</field> <field name="point">2,2,2,2,2,2</field> <field name="point">3,3,3,3,3,3</field> <field name="point">4,4,4,4,4,4</field> </doc> The first approach to implement this was PointType. But I have the problem that I comment in my first message, the search queries will be a 6-Dimension point that I have to full-match with the indexed points, and as far as I know I cannot do it with PointType. With SpatialRecursivePrefixTreeFieldType would be perfect if I could use more than two dimensions. Regards, Borja. -- View this message in context: http://lucene.472066.n3.nabble.com/PointType-multivalued-query-tp4020445p4020616.html Sent from the Solr - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
