Thanks for your help - I think I may have stumbled on the answer but if someone can confirm it I would be most grateful.
My guess is that, if we do the following 1. Retrieve a Document instance D from the index using e.g. IndexSearcher.search() 2. Delete the original Document corresponding to D from the index using IndexReader.delete() 3. Re-add the Document instance D to the index using IndexWriter.addDocument() then the document we add back will not contain any of the 'unstored' fields that were present in the original document, because presumably when you retrieve the Document instance in step 1, the instance returned does not contain fields marked as 'not stored'. Hence in our case once the Document went through the steps above, it lost its sortable fields. Once we marked the sortable fields as 'stored' then the process above would preserve those fields and hence sorting would proceed as normal. Does that make sense? Thanks Alan -----Original Message----- From: Erick Erickson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu 9/14/2006 18:00 To: java-user@lucene.apache.org Cc: Subject: Re: Newbie question: lucene sorting problems and stored fields from the ****2.0**** javadoc, the Sort class, so I don't know if it applies..... <<<The field must be indexed, but should not be tokenized, and does not need to be stored (unless you happen to want it back with the rest of your document data).>>> Is it possible you're tokenizing it? I'm at a loss as to why *storing* it would change the behavior, but I guess it's a possibility. Erick On 9/14/06, Alan Boshier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That was my understanding (that they had to be indexed) but > making them stored seems to have fixed the problem we were > seeing, which is odd. > > Not being an expert on how lucene works internally, I'm > struggling to see how this change could have made any > difference. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mordo, Aviran (EXP N-NANNATEK) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thu 9/14/2006 17:18 > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Cc: > Subject: RE: Newbie question: lucene sorting problems and stored > fields > > AFIK, the field has to be indexed, but I don't think it has to be stored > (but then again maybe I'm wrong) > > Aviran > http://www.aviransplace.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Boshier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:39 AM > To: java-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Newbie question: lucene sorting problems and stored fields > > Hi > > We are seeing intermittent problems with searches that use sorted fields > (in lucene 1.4.3). > > If we add the fields to our Documents as 'unstored' then we start to see > results that have been sorted by Document ID. > > The problem goes away if we add the fields as 'stored'. > > Is it a requirement when creating a field for sorting to make it stored? > > Thanks > > Alan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
