Have you considered putting them in the _same_ index? There's not much penalty at all with having sparsely populated fields in a document, so the fact that the two parts of your index had orthogonal fields wouldn't cost you much and would solve the synchronization problem.
You can include a type field to distinguish between the and just include a filter query to keep them separate. Since that'll be cached, your search performance should be fine. Otherwise you should include the fields you need to sort on in the index you need to sort. Denormalizes the data, but... About keeping the two in synch, that's really outside Solr, your indexing process has to manage that I'd guess. Best, Erick On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Jimmy Lin <jimmys.em...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > My team has been working with SOLR for the last 2 years. We have two main > indices: > > 1. documents > -index and store main text > -one record for each document > 2. places (all of the geospatial places found in the documents above) > -index but don't store main text > -one record for each place. could have thousands in a single > document but the ratio has seemed to come out to 6:1 places to documents > > We have several tools that query the above indices. One is just a standard > search tool that returns documents filtered on keyword, temporal, and > geospatial filters. Another is a geospatial tool that queries the places > collection. We now have a requirement to provide document highlighting > when querying in the geospatial tool. > > Does anyone have any suggestions/prior experience on how they would set up > two collections that are essentially different "views" of the data? Also > any tips on how to ensure that these two collections are "in sync" (meaning > any documents indexed into the documents collection are also properly > indexed in places)? > > Thanks alot, > > Jimmy Lin
