Well, it is common in most databasesystems, that if you dont specify a
sort, you get the results sorted by id, or by when the rows are inserted
into the db.
The quickest way for you is to write around your query.
instead of doing one query, just do where queries with equals. this would
produce a bit overflow if you have your database on an external server,
but again, the quickest query to ever run in sql are equals-queries. Since
the ID is unique (i hope so), it should be no problem at all.
... WHERE id = 2;
... WHERE id = 3
... WHERE id = 19
and so on would give you the correct relevance-order.
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:09:01 +0200, karl wettin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 01:10 +0200, Dominik Bruhn wrote:
SELECT id,addfield FROM table WHERE id IN ([LUCENERESULT]);
Where LUCENERESULT is like 2,3,19,3,5.
This works fine but got one problem: The Search-Result of Lucene is
order by
relevance and so the id-list is also sorted by relevance. But the
result of
the SQL-Query is sorted by the id which destroys the relevance-sorting.
Does anybody know a work-arround?
This is really a question you should ask in the forum of your RDBMS. You
could always execute multiple SQL-queries within the same statement
without too much loss. But I'm certain there is a way to enforce the
order as you specified it in the WHERE-clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aleksander M. Stensby
Software Developer
Integrasco A/S
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tlf.: +47 41 22 82 72
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
