Sounds good... for Lucene users, but for Solr users... sounds like a Jira is
needed.
-- Jack Krupansky
-----Original Message-----
From: Ahmet Arslan
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 4:54 PM
To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org ; kokatnur.vi...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Searching multivalue fields.
Hi Vijay,
After reading the documentation it seems that following query is what you
are after. It will return OrderId:345 without matching OrderId:123
SpanQuery q1 = new SpanTermQuery(new Term("BookingRecordId", "234"));
SpanQuery q2 = new SpanTermQuery(new Term("OrderLineType", "11"));
SpanQuery q2m new FieldMaskingSpanQuery(q2, "BookingRecordId");
Query q = new SpanNearQuery(new SpanQuery[]{q1, q2m}, -1, false);
Ahmet
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:39 PM, Ahmet Arslan <iori...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Hi Vijay,
I personally don't understand joins very well. Just a guess may be
FieldMaskingSpanQuery could be used?
http://blog.griddynamics.com/2011/07/solr-experience-search-parent-child.html
Ahmet
On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 9:46 PM, Vijay Kokatnur
<kokatnur.vi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I am bumping this thread again one last time to see if anyone has a
solution.
In it's current state, our application is storing child items as multivalue
fields. Consider some orders, for example -
{
OrderId:123
BookingRecordId : ["145", "987", "*234*"]
OrderLineType : ["11", "12", "*13*"]
.....
}
{
OrderId:345
BookingRecordId : ["945", "882", "*234*"]
OrderLineType : ["1", "12", "*11*"]
.....
}
{
OrderId:678
BookingRecordId : ["444"]
OrderLineType : ["11"]
.....
}
Here, If you look up for an Order with BookingRecordId: 234 And
OrderLineType:11. You will get two orders with orderId : 123 and 345,
which is correct. You have two arrays in both the orders that satisfy this
condition.
However, for OrderId:123, the value at 3rd index of OrderLineType array is
13 and not 11( this is for OrderId:345). So orderId 123 should be
excluded. This is what I am trying to achieve.
I got some suggestions from a solr-user to use FieldsCollapsing, Join,
Block-join or string concatenation. None of these approaches can be used
without re-indexing schema.
Has anyone found a non-invasive solution for this?
Thanks,
-Vijay
